Childrens Worlds Comparative Report 2020

0
CHILDREN'S
WORLDS
REPORT
2020
CHILDREN'S VIEWS ON THEIR LIVES AND WELL-BEING IN 35 COUNTRIES:

A REPORT ON THE CHILDREN'S WORLDS SURVEY, 2016-19
Children’s Worlds Report, 2020
Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 35 countries:

A report on the Children’s Worlds study, 2016-19
Acknowledgements
The project team would like to thank the Jacobs Foundation for their generous funding which made it
possible to conduct this wave of the Children’s Worlds study and for their support through the
process of completing this work.
We would like to thank the schools and other organizations within each country that facilitated the
survey.
Finally, and most importantly, we are grateful to the 128,184 children who spent time completing the
survey and providing the views and experiences on which this report is based.
About this report

This report has been prepared and edited by Gwyther Rees, Shazly Savahl, Bong Joo Lee and Ferran
Casas. It is the product of a collaborative effort between the international team of researchers working
on this wave of the Children’s Worlds survey listed on the following pages. Copy editing was done
by Amira Lauer. The report was published in August 2020.
It can be cited as follows:
Rees, G., Savahl, S., Lee, B. J., & Casas, F. (eds.), (2020). Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 35
countries: A report on the Children’s Worlds project, 2016-19. Jerusalem, Israel: Children’s Worlds Project
(ISCWeB). https://isciweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Childrens-Worlds-Comparative-Report-
2020.pdf
Further information
Further information about the Children’s Worlds project can be found on the project website at
www.isciweb.org.
If you have any queries about the project, please e-mail: sagit@haruv.org.il
1
International project team of Children’s Worlds 2016-19
Project Principal Investigators (Core Group)

Sabine Andresen, Faculty of Educational Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.
Asher Ben-Arieh, The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and Haruv Institute, Israel.
Jonathan Bradshaw, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, U.K.
Ferran Casas, Social Psychology, ERIDIQV, Research Institute on Quality of Life, University of
Girona, Spain.
Bong Joo Lee, Department of Social Welfare, Seoul National University. South Korea.
Gwyther Rees, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, U.K.
Project Co-ordinator
Hanita Kosher (Former Co-ordinator), The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Sagit Bruck, The Children's Worlds project (International Survey of Children's Well-Being - ISCWeB(.
National Principal Investigators and Researchers

ALBANIA: Migena Kapllanaj and Robert Gjedija , Marin Barleti University; and Rudina Rama, Tirana
University.
ALGERIA (WESTERN): Habib Tillouine, University of Oran 2.
BANGLADESH (CITIES): Haridhan Goswami, Manchester Metropolitan University, U.K.; Ibrahim
Khalil, Govt. B. M. College, Barisal; and Bijoy Krishna Banik, University of Rajshahi.
BELGIUM (FLANDERS): Fien Van Wolvelaer, Jessica De Maeyer and Didier Reynaert, Hogeschool
Gent; Jessy Siongers, The Vrije Universiteit Brussel; Lieve Bradt, Ghent University; Johan Put and
Stefaan Pleysier, KU Leuven.
BRAZIL (CITIES): Jorge Castellá Sarriera and Lívia Maria Bedin, Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul.
CHILE (CITIES): Jaime Alfaro, Mariavictoria Benavente, Tamara Yaikin, Josefina Chuecas, Jorge
Fábrega, Roberto Melipillán, Fernando Reyes, Jorge Varela and Carlos Rodríguez, Universidad del
Desarrollo.
CROATIA: Marina Ajdukovic, Nika Sušac and Linda Rajhvajn Bulat, Petra Kožljan, Ivan Rimac and
Lucija Vejmelka, University of Zagreb.
ESTONIA: Dagmar Kutsar, Oliver Nahkur and Rein Murakas, University of Tartu.
FINLAND: Leena Haanpää, Enna Toikka and Piia af Ursin, University of Turku.
FRANCE (CITIES): Philippe Guimard, University of Nantes; Laurent Sovet, Université de Paris;
Stéphanie Constans, Université de Rennes 1; Agnès Florin, Université de Nantes; Nicolas Guirimand,
Université de Rouen; and Isabelle Nocus, University of Nantes.
GERMANY: Sabine Andresen, Johanna Wilmes and Renate Möller, Goethe University Frankfurt.
GREECE (EPIRUS): Antoanneta Potsi, Technical University of Dortmund, Germany; Zoi Nikiforidou,
Liverpool Hope University, UK.; and Lydia Ntokou, University of Ioannina.
HONG KONG SAR: Maggie Lau and Stefan Kühner, Lingnan University.
2
HUNGARY: Peter Róbert and Lilla Szabó, TÁRKI Social Research Institute.
INDIA (CITY – KOLKATA): Saswati Das and Diganta Mukherjee, Indian Statistical Institute,
Kollkata.
INDONESIA (WEST JAVA): Ihsana Sabriani Borualogo, Ali Mubarak, Andhita Nurul Khasanah,
Erlang Gumilang, Fanni Putri Diantina, Isniati Permataputri and Miki Amrilya, Universitas Islam
Bandung.
ISRAEL: Asher Ben-Arieh, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Daphna Gross-Manos, Tel-Hai
Academic College; Hanita Kosher, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and Edna Shimoni, Central
Bureau of Statistics.
ITALY (LIGURIA): Laura Migliorini, Nadia Rania, Elisa Ruggeri and Tatiana Tassara, University of
Genoa.
MALAYSIA: Nor Sheereen Zulkefly and Rozumah Baharudin, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
MALTA: Carmel Cefai and Natalie Galea, University of Malta.
NAMIBIA (KHOMAS): Mónica Ruiz-Casares, McGill University, Canada; and Shelene Gentz, the
University of Namibia.
NEPAL (SELECTED): Arbinda Lal Bhomi, Tribhuvan University.
NORWAY: Mette Løvgren, Oslo Metropolitan University.
POLAND: Tomasz Strózik and Dorota Strózik, The Poznań University of Economics and Business.
ROMANIA: Sergiu Bălțătescu and Claudia Bacter, University of Oradea.
RUSSIA (TYUMEN): Zhanna Bruk, Tyumen State University.
SOUTH AFRICA: Shazly Savahl, University of the Western Cape; and Sabirah Adams, University of
Cape Town; Donnay Manuel and Mulalo Mpilo, University of the Western Cape.
SOUTH KOREA: Bong Joo Lee, Seoul National University; Jaejin Ahn, Gachon University; Joan Yoo,
Seoul National University; Sunsuk Kim, Korea National University of Transportation; Min Sang Yoo,
National Youth Policy Institute; Ho Jun Park, Sumi Oh and Eunho Cha, Seoul National University.
SPAIN (CATALONIA): Ferran Casas and Mònica González, Sara Malo, Meriam Boulahrouz, Dolors
Navarro, Mari Corominas and Cristina Figuer, University of Girona.
SRI LANKA (CENTRAL): Subhashinie Wijesundera, Nikki Schuck and Prasad Sethunga, University
of Peradeniya.
SWITZERLAND: Tim Tausendfreund, Ida Ofelia Brink, Samuel Keller and Thomas Gabriel, ZHAW
Zurich University of Applied Sciences.
TAIWAN: Tzu-Hsin Huang, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA; and Yu-Wen Chen,
National Taiwan University.
UK (ENGLAND): Gwyther Rees, Jonathan Bradshaw, University of York; Louise Moore and
Alexandra Turner, the Children's Society.
UK (WALES): Jennifer May Hampton, Sally Power and Chris Taylor, Cardiff University.
VIETNAM (NORTH): Truong Thi Khanh Ha, Nguyen Van Luot, Tran Ha Thu, and Truong Quang
Lam, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
3
Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5
The context of children’s lives ........................................................................ 10
Overall well-being ............................................................................................ 23
Family life .......................................................................................................... 39
Friends and peers ............................................................................................. 48
School ................................................................................................................. 56
Neighbourhoods .............................................................................................. 71
Overview of domains of well-being .............................................................. 79
Conclusion......................................................................................................... 86
Appendix: Technical details of the study ..................................................... 93
References.......................................................................................................... 96
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
Few people would disagree with the notion of promoting child well-being. And yet there are many
different ideas about what exactly this means. Some view childhood as a developmental phase in
preparation for adulthood; this view focuses on future well-being, sometimes referred to as well-
becoming. The Children’s Worlds project takes a different outlook. It focuses on childhood as a life
stage in its own right, and on children’s own views on their lives and well-being in the present.
Children’s Worlds is the first global study of childhood from a child’s perspective. It began in 2010
with a small unfunded pilot project and has developed, with the Jacobs Foundation's support, to
gather the views of more than 200,000 children in over 40 countries across five continents. This report
presents the first findings from the third and largest wave of the study undertaken between 2016-
2019, covering 35 countries with such diverse contexts as Namibia, Nepal and Norway.
Central to the project is the concept of ‘well-being’. Children’s Worlds focus is children’s day-to-day
feelings of happiness and sadness; their satisfaction with their life as a whole and different aspects of
it; their feelings of safety, being cared for, autonomy, and being listened to; and their hopes and
expectations for the future.
The subjective well-being of adults has been extensively researched for at least half a century, from
the seminal work of Wilson (1967) and Andrews and Withey (1976) in the US, to the World Happiness
Reports summarising adult life satisfaction across the globe (Helliwell et al., 2020). Research on
children’s subjective well-being has lagged behind. In the first decade of the new millennium this gap
began to be filled by studies in individual countries (see Proctor et al., 2009 for a review). It is only in
the last ten years that this field has expanded to include comparative work across many countries.
Studies such as the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (HBSC) (Currie et al., 2012) and
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), have included several subjective
questions in recent waves. However, neither covers the full range of aspects of children’s lives and
neither includes a broad selection of countries across continents and different levels of national
economic wealth. The current wave of the Children’s Worlds study addresses both of these evidence
gaps.
This report provides an initial descriptive overview of several key topics covered in the third and
most recent wave of the survey.
5
Notes to this report:
1. Binary gender options were provided in this survey for scientific purposes of comparison.
Participants identified themselves as ‘boy’ or ‘girl’, thus these terms are used here.
2. Children participated in this survey in three age groups of 8, 10 and 12; reference to these
ages is not an accurate reflection of children’s actual age, rather to their age group.
3. Due to the 10-year-old age group being the most complete, many comparisons are based
upon this sample. Tables and figures relate children 10 years of age unless otherwise stated.
Details appear in the text.
4. In many of the 35 countries, this survey was conducted in a specific area/s and results do not
reflect the entire country; this is noted in Table 1.1 in parentheses. Henceforth, all reference to
countries indicates the defined area/s, even in the absence of specific mention.
6
The final data set

The number of children included in the final data set in each country and age group is shown in Table
1.1.
Table 1.1: Final sample by country/region and age group after data cleaning
Country (region) 8yo 10yo 12yo Total
AL Albania 0 1,176 1,163 2,339
DZ Algeria (Western) 1,185 1,137 1,054 3,376
BD Bangladesh (Cities) 790 946 1,012 2,748
BE Belgium (Flanders) 1,134 1,112 1,076 3,322
BR Brazil (Cities) 887 886 901 2,674
CL Chile (Cities) 916 913 1,016 2,845
HR Croatia 1,117 1,240 1,155 3,512
EE Estonia 1,058 1,013 1,079 3,150
FI Finland 1,112 1,067 1,075 3,254
FR France (Cities) 0 2,184 0 2,184
DE Germany 945 829 1,524 3,298
GR Greece (Epirus) 0 822 0 822
HK Hong Kong SAR 0 709 816 1,525
HU Hungary 1,016 1,035 994 3,045
IN India (City - Kolkata) 994 946 977 2,917
ID Indonesia (West Java) 7,684 7,680 8,038 23,402
IL Israel 1,487 1,637 1,465 4,589
IT Italy (Liguria) 1,044 1,074 1,181 3,299
MY Malaysia 967 992 0 1,959
MT Malta 567 630 824 2,021
NA Namibia (Khomas) 0 1,065 1,099 2,164
NP Nepal (Selected) 0 1,005 1,041 2,046
NO Norway 0 801 817 2,222
PL Poland 964 1,192 1,156 3,312
RO Romania 1,082 1,241 1,145 3,468
RU Russia (Tyumen) 0 953 951 1,904
ZA S Africa 0 3,415 3,699 7,114
KR S Korea 3,170 3,174 3,395 9,739
ES Spain (Catalonia) 2,329 2,209 2,088 6,626
LK Sri Lanka (Central) 0 1,156 1,221 2,377
CH Switzerland 0 1,229 0 1,229
TW Taiwan 1,230 1,337 1,511 4,078
EN UK (England) 0 717 0 717
WA UK (Wales) 0 959 1,668 2,627
VN Vietnam (North) 930 946 1,080 2,956
Total 32,608 49,427 46,149 128,184
7
The questionnaires
As in previous waves, the survey questionnaires were structured into sections focusing on different
aspects of children’s lives, such as home, friendships and school; and on life as a whole.
The questionnaires cover:
 Children’s characteristics
 Economic / material context
 Home context
 Overall well-being
 Self
 Family
 Friends
 School
 Neighbourhood
 Time use
 Country
 Children’s rights
Some were core questions all countries were expected to include (barring an ethical or cultural reason
not to) and others were optional.
Three different versions of the questionnaire were composed for the different age groups. The
questionnaires for the two older age groups were very similar, with only a few of the more abstract or
complex questions being excluded for the 10-year-olds. The questionnaire for 8-year-olds was shorter
and some types of questions given a different format as discussed below.
The questionnaires consisted mainly of four types of questions:
1. Satisfaction/happiness: These asked children to evaluate particular aspects of their lives such as
their home or their health. For the two older age groups these questions had an 11-point response
scale from 0 (Not at all satisfied) to 10 (Totally satisfied). Some countries felt this scale was too
long for the 8-year-olds and therefore, as in the second wave, a shorter five-point emoticon scale
was used. This variation precludes comparison between responses of the younger age group with
those of the two older age groups.
2. Agreement: These questions took the form of a statement, such as ‘I feel safe at home’, to which
children were asked to respond on a five-point scale from ‘Not agree’ to ‘Totally agree’. Questions
were asked in exactly the same way across all three age groups. A few of the agreement questions
about overall subjective well-being discussed in Chapter 3, used a longer 11-point response scale
for the two older age groups, and the five-point emoticon scale for the youngest age group.
3. Frequency: These questions asked children how often they did something or something
happened to them. They included a series of questions about daily activities as well as
experiences, such as being bullied or witnessing violence. There was some variation in response
scales depending on the exact question.
4. Fact-based: Finally there were questions regarding factual aspects of children’s lives, such as who
they lived with and whether their family owned a television.
Cutting across these themes, and in particular the main different environments that children spend
time in – home, school and the neighbourhood, the agreement questions were also designed to enable
exploration of themes, such as safety and participation, across different aspects of children’s lives.
8
International comparison of children’s subjective well-being

One of the challenges of international comparative work on subjective well-being, whether with
adults or children, is understanding the extent to which it is reasonable to compare responses given
by participants in different countries and contexts. This is a controversial area in research on
subjective well-being. On the one hand, some studies have found evidence of cultural response
differences in questions about subjective experience (Diener et al., 2000, 2003); there are also
difficulties in finding appropriate translations for abstract concepts. On the other hand, researchers
have argued (Diener et al., 1995) that a substantial amount of variation in mean adult subjective well-
being across countries, may be explained by other known country characteristics, such as national
wealth or levels of corruption and trust. For children the picture is even less clear. First, there is
surprisingly little correlation between mean life satisfaction of adults and children at country level
(Casas, 2017); second, it has not been possible to definitively identify factors that explain much of the
variation in mean child subjective well-being between countries.
This does not indicate that international research on people’s subjective experience is of no value. As
discussed in Chapter 3, it may still be possible to create subjective measures suitable for comparing
regression analyses between countries. This means that we can gain an understanding of the
similarities and differences in factors that explain variations between countries in children’s subjective
well-being. Additionally, as we show in Chapter 8 we can still use mean scores for satisfaction with
different aspects of life to gain insights into relative strengths and weaknesses in each country. This
can only be achieved through international comparisons and may potentially provide guidance to
policymakers on potential areas for improvement.
Statistical analysis in this report

The analysis presented in this report was conducted in Stata and SPSS, and took account of weighting
and sample design (clustering and stratification) in each country. All significance testing uses robust
standard errors due to the clustered nature of school-based surveys. All results discussed as
statistically significant refer to a p-value of less than 0.05 (95% confidence); a single asterisk in tables
and figures denotes a p-value of less than 0.05, a double asterisk denotes a p-value of 0.01. The
analysis in this report is relatively simple and consists mainly of bivariate analysis of gender and age
differences, using chi-square tests, t-tests and ANOVA. Reference is also made to confirmatory factor
analysis of some multi-item scales.
For many aspects of the analysis we focus on the 10-years-old age group, as (as shown in Table 1.1)
this was the only age group surveyed in all 35 countries. We provide key information for the other
two age groups in participating countries and make age-related comparisons where possible.
Study design
Additional details about the study design are provided in the Appendix.
9
Chapter 2
The context of children’s lives
Overview
In this chapter, we provide information on the context of children’s lives. This includes questions
about the type of home children live in, their family structure, and their material circumstances. This
background information provides an important context to the findings presented in the subsequent
chapters in this report. For example, the chapter on family life includes children’s satisfied with the
people they live with. The findings on different levels of family life satisfaction across the countries,
need to be viewed within the context of family structure and/or number of sibling variations.
The survey asked 10- and 12-year-olds a number of questions about their living arrangements, the
people they live with, and their material circumstances, shown in Box 2.1.
Box 2.1: Questions on children’s home circumstances

Which of the following best describes the home you live in?
 I live with my family
 I live in a foster home
 I live in a children’s home
 I live in another type of home
Please tick all of the people who live in your home
 Mother
 Father
 Stepmother
 Stepfather
 Grandmother
 Grandfather
 Brothers and sisters
 Other children
 Other adults
In total, how many brothers and sisters do you have?
In the last year, did either of your parents live or work away from home for more than a month?
(Note: this question was only included in 22 countries)
 Mother – No, Yes in another part of the country, Yes in a different country
 Father – No, Yes in another part of the country, Yes in a different country
As the 10-year-olds' survey was the only one that covered all 35 countries, we focus on the findings
for this age group in order to draw comparisons.
10
Children’s home circumstances

The vast majority of children in all countries said they lived with their family. There were only four
countries where fewer than 95% of children did so: Brazil (93.8%), Namibia (93.5%), Nepal (94.8%)
and South Africa (93.9%). In these countries, some children lived in a mixture of alternative settings
including foster care, residential care, and other types of homes. The following analysis focuses on
children who live with one or more family members, and does not include Namibia and Poland
where detailed questions about who the child lived with were not asked.
It is increasingly common for some children to spend time living in two homes, usually with different
parents after a parental separation. In 11 countries children were asked whether they sometimes or
often stayed in a second home. In eight of these countries, all in Europe, this is more than 10% of the
children in the 10-year-old survey: Belgium (Flanders) (14%), UK (England) (13%), Germany (16%),
Italy (12%), Malta (10%), Norway (18%), Switzerland (14%), and Wales (16%). This topic would be
worth further exploration in these countries. The analysis below considers only children who lived in
whichever home they identified as their primary home.
Figure 2.1 shows the proportion of 10-year-old children who lived with both, one or neither birth
parents in their single or primary home. In seven countries more than 90% of children lived with both
birth parents, while in five countries less than 70% did. The ‘one parent’ category includes children
living with a birth parent and a stepparent. There was no discernible geographical pattern in terms of
the findings - different countries from different continents appear together in the chart. The
proportion of children living with neither parent was highest, at approximately 8% in South Africa
and Namibia. Indonesia was the only other country where more than one in twenty children (6%) did
not live with a parent.
In four countries, Israel, Algeria, Norway and Malaysia, over 90% of children lived with a sibling or
other child in the household (Figure 2.2). The proportion of children who did not live with a sibling or
other child was above 30% in Italy, Brazil, and Hong Kong SAR.
Children were also asked if a grandparent lived with them (Figure 2.3). There were significant
differences between countries in this respect. In India and Albania more than half of children lived
with a grandparent – primarily also with a parent, in multi-generational households. This proportion
was less than 2% in Finland and Norway.
In 21 countries children were asked whether their mother or father had worked away from home for
more than a month in the past year, either in the country or abroad. Here we focus on children who
had a parent who worked abroad. Over a quarter of children in Romania and Albania had a parent
who worked abroad for more than a month in the last year; this figure was above 10% in five other
countries (Figure 2.4).
These summary statistics illustrate the wide range of children’s home contexts in both the same and
different countries surveyed, and paint a picture of one aspect of the diversity in children’s lives
around the world, within which their experiences and well-being should be understood.
11
Figure 2.1: Children living with both, one, or no birth parents in single or first home
2 parents 1 parent No parents
Albania
India
Greece
Nepal
Malaysia
Sri Lanka
Algeria
S Korea
Israel
Croatia
Romania
Poland
Switzerland
Hong Kong
Spain
Malta
Germany
Bangladesh
Russia
Italy
Taiwan
Belgium
Finland
France
Norway
Indonesia
Estonia
England
Hungary
Chile
Wales
Brazil
Namibia
S Africa
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of children living with both, one or neither birth parent
10 years olds
12
Figure 2.2: Children living with a sibling or other child
Algeria 91%
Norway 91%
Malaysia 91%
Nepal 90%
Bangladesh 89%
Finland 89%
Switzerland 88%
Sri Lanka 88%
France 88%
Albania 88%
Wales 87%
Greece 86%
Namibia 86%
England 86%
S Korea 84%
Belgium 84%
Chile 83%
Taiwan 82%
Spain 81%
Croatia 80%
Poland 79%
Russia 78%
Romania 76%
Hungary 76%
S Africa 76%
Malta 75%
Estonia 74%
Indonesia 74%
Germany 73%
India 72%
Hong Kong 68%
Brazil 68%
Italy 65%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of children living with other children
10 years olds
13
Figure 2.3: Children living with a grandparent in the household
Albania 50%
Sri Lanka 48%
Taiwan 45%
S Africa 44%
Nepal 44%
Romania 41%
Indonesia 39%
Croatia 33%
Poland 30%
Namibia 29%
Algeria 28%
Chile 27%
Bangladesh 25%
Brazil 23%
Hong Kong 21%
Malaysia 18%
Estonia 17%
Greece 17%
Russia 17%
Malta 16%
Germany 14%
Hungary 12%
S Korea 11%
Italy 10%
Spain 8%
Israel 7%
England 6%
Wales 5%
Belgium 5%
Switzerland 4%
France 4%
Finland 2%
Norway 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
% of children living with a grandparent
10 years olds
14
Figure 2.4: Parent working abroad for at least one month in the past year
Albania 25%
Estonia 19%
Nepal 18%
Hungary 12%
Poland 11%
Sri Lanka 10%
Croatia 10%
Italy 9%
Taiwan 9%
England 8%
Wales 7%
Belgium 6%
Spain 6%
Indonesia 5%
Malaysia 5%
Brazil 5%
Russia 3%
Algeria 3%
Greece 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
% of children with a parent who worked abroad
10 years old
Material circumstances
Children were asked a set of eight questions about things they have (Box 2.2). This list was developed
in consultation with children and researchers across countries during the piloting phase of the current
survey wave. Children were also asked about household material items and conditions. These varied
across countries and for this reason are not presented here. Further work will be done using those
items. Finally, children were asked if they had enough food to eat each day, and how often they
worried about how much money their family had.
Box 2.2: Questions about material circumstances
Which of the following things do you have?

 Clothes in good condition
 Enough money for school trips and activities
 Access to the internet at home
 The equipment you need for sports and hobbies
 Pocket money / money to spend on yourself
 Two pairs of shoes in good condition
 A mobile phone
 The equipment you need for school
Response options were ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.
Do you have enough food to eat each day?
Four-point frequency scale response: Never, Sometimes, Often, Always plus ‘Don’t know’ option
How often do you worry about how much money your family has?
Four-point frequency scale response: Never, Sometimes, Often, Always plus ‘Don’t know’ option
15
Children’s responses in the 10-years-old survey to the eight questions about material items are shown
in Table 2.1.
 In all but one country, at least 90% of children said that they had clothes in good condition.
(The low score in Belgium [73%] may be due to a variation in the question wording). In four
countries – Indonesia, Namibia, Nepal and South Africa, – around 8% to 10% of children said
that they did not have clothes in good condition to go to school.
 The patterns were similar for the question about having two pairs of shoes in good condition.
There were ten countries where more than one in ten children indicated that they did not
have two pairs of good shoes.
 Not being able to participate in school activities is a key potential element of social exclusion
for children. In 13 countries more than one in ten children said that they did not have enough
money to take part in school trips.
 In general, the proportion of children who had enough money for school equipment was
higher than for school trips, but there were still some countries – Namibia, Nepal and South
Africa, – where more than one in ten children said that they did not have this.
 A substantial minority of children in most countries said that they did not have the
equipment they needed for sports and hobbies. In nine countries, more than one in five
children were in this situation; again, these children may experience social exclusion.
 Having some money of one’s own can give children a sense of autonomy. Most children in
Vietnam and Nepal did not receive pocket money. The next two countries, with just over half
of children receiving money to spend, were Italy and Spain. More than 90% of children in
South Korea, Norway, Hungary, Germany, and Estonia had some pocket money. The next
highest countries were Finland and Malaysia, both at 88%. The data shows a range of
situations in different countries that suggests that this item reflects different approaches and
attitudes to giving children pocket money.
 Internet access has become a key aspect of children’s material circumstances. Children who
cannot access the internet may experience social exclusion, as well as not being able to access
information like other children. Debates have intensified in many countries as a result of
school closures and the use of digital learning in response to the COVID-19 crisis. In 13
countries, 12 of which were in Europe plus South Korea, more than 95% of children in the 10-
year-old age group had access to the internet at home. In Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Nepal
fewer than half of children did. These data highlight substantial inequalities both within and
between countries. Information poverty may constitute a new form of disadvantage
experienced by children in lower-income countries, potentially affecting their possible future
directions.
 Mobile phone ownership is also key to information access and social inclusion. The highest
rates (above 95%) were in Croatia, Estonia, Finland, and Norway. The lowest rates (below
50%) were in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The rates were also just over 50% in some
European countries such as France, Greece and Belgium (Flanders). Given the very different
rates of phone ownership in two relatively high-income countries such as France and
Norway, it seems likely that whether children have their own mobile phone partly reflects
cultural norms and parental choices as well as economic constraints.
Overall, this set of data suggests that it probably does not make sense to use children’s levels of access
to material items to compare material circumstances across countries, as patterns may be explained by
cultural as well as economic factors. However, this set of items may be useful in exploring within-
16
country differences in children’s experiences of life, depending on their level of access to material
items.
Table 2.1: Children having each item by country
Good Good School Equip Equip Pocket Internet Mobile

clothes shoes trips school hobbies money access phone
Albania 99% 96% 94% 96% 82% 86% 86% 76%
Algeria 96% 89% 78% 95% 81% 81% 66% 66%
Bangladesh 96% 91% 69% 97% 68% 69% 40% 47%
Belgium (Flanders) (77%)* 86% 97% 98% 94% 73% 98% 56%
Brazil 99% 97% 84% 96% 71% 56% 93% 83%
Chile 99% 97% 86% 98% 84% 80% 89% 85%
Croatia 99% 95% 98% 99% 94% 76% 97% 95%
Estonia 100% 98% 97% 100% 92% 90% 98% 98%
Finland 98% 96% 94% 99% 94% 88% 97% 99%
France 100% 97% 93% 99% 98% 85% 95% 50%
Germany 98% 97% 97% 98% 93% 90% 98% 90%
Greece 100% 97% 95% 99% 93% 76% 92% 53%
Hong Kong SAR 99% 98% 95% 98% 90% 76% 92% 78%
Hungary 100% 99% 98% 99% 95% 93% 98% 93%
India 98% 92% 70% 93% 87% 66% 56% 60%
Indonesia 91% 88% 85% 95% 68% 83% 46% 74%
Italy 100% 97% 97% 99% 92% 53% 91% 67%
Malaysia 95% 92% 78% 97% 84% 88% 72% 58%
Malta 98% 98% 97% 98% 91% 85% 98% 61%
Namibia 92% 86% 72% 81% 71% 65% 66% 57%
Nepal 91% 76% 56% 76% 60% 46% 33% 37%
Norway 99% 99% 97% 99% 98% 93% 99% 97%
Poland 100% 98% 96% 98% 87% 80% 97% 93%
Romania 98% 95% 91% 96% 90% 87% 90% 88%
Russia 99% 96% 84% 96% 86% 83% 93% 95%
S Africa 92% 86% 76% 84% 75% 80% 67% 69%
S Korea 100% 98% 97% 99% 96% 95% 97% 92%
Spain 98% 98% 97% 99% 96% 53% 96% 68%
Sri Lanka 96% 88% 78% 92% 77% 60% 52% 33%
Switzerland 100% 99% 97% 99% 96% 84% 98% 57%
Taiwan 99% 94% 96% 99% 89% 79% 90% 62%
UK (England) 99% 97% 97% 98% 94% 81% 97% 73%
UK (Wales) 100% 96% 97% 96% 92% 83% 97% 83%
Vietnam 97% 88% 88% 90% 59% 26% 57% 50%
10 years old
Israel excluded as question was not asked in all schools.
* Wording of the first question differed slightly in Belgium (Flanders) questionnaire, thus this figure should not be seen as
directly comparable.
Interesting age-related patterns emerged in terms of children’s access to mobile phones. In most
countries this increased with age between 8 and 12 years of age (Figure 2.5). However, there were a
few countries, Bangladesh, India, Namibia, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, where 10-year-olds had greater
17
access than 12-year-olds. These are all countries with relatively low proportions of children with
mobile phones. It may be that there is a cohort effect in these countries, with mobile phone usage
increasing more rapidly in younger age groups.
Figure 2.5: Children having a mobile phone by age group
Countries ordered by proportion of 10-year-old children having a mobile phone.

Israel excluded as question was not asked in all schools
18
Figure 2.6 shows the distribution of the total number of items children lacked (i.e. said they did not
have) in each country. In four countries, Norway, South Korea, Hungary, and Estonia, less than one in
five children lacked any items at all. In most countries very few children lacked more than half of the
items, but in seven countries this percentage was above one in 20 children – Nepal (24%), Namibia
(13%), Sri Lanka (11%), Vietnam (10%), Bangladesh (8%), South Africa (8%), and Algeria (6%).
Figure 2.6: Children lacking items by country
Norway
S Korea
Hungary
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Romania
Croatia
Poland
UK (Wales)
Russia
UK (England)
Hong Kong
Chile
Albania
Malta
Switzerland
Taiwan
France
Algeria
Spain
Greece
Brazil
S Africa
Malaysia
Italy
Namibia
Indonesia
India
Sri Lanka
Bangladesh
Vietnam
Nepal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0 1 2 3 4 +5
10 years old
Belgium (Flanders) excluded due to different wording of one question as noted above
19
We now turn to the two other questions children were asked about their material circumstances –
how often they had enough food to eat, and how often they worried about how much money their
family had.
In 12 countries more than 90% of children in the 10-year-old age group said they had enough food to
eat each day. In eight countries/regions, from Indonesia to Namibia in Figure 2.7, at least a quarter of
children said this was not always the case. In these eight countries plus Bangladesh, more than 10% of
children said they never, or only sometimes had enough food to eat each day. The highest percentage
of children who reported they never had enough to eat presented in Hong Kong SAR, at
approximately 7% of children.
Figure 2.7: Children having enough food to eat each day
Never Sometimes Often Always
Hungary
Romania
Croatia
Albania
Norway
Spain
Switzerland
Italy
Israel
Poland
Malta
France
Estonia
Belgium
England
Brazil
Wales
India
Chile
Finland
Algeria
Greece
Taiwan
Russia
S Korea
Bangladesh
Namibia
Nepal
Malaysia
S Africa
Hong Kong SAR
Vietnam
Sri Lanka
Indonesia
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How often children had enough food to eat
10 years old
20
Figure 2.8 shows the frequency of children worrying about how much money their family had in the
10-year-old survey. In eight countries, from Russia to Wales on the chart, more than half of children
never worried. In Malaysia and South Africa more than half of children worried about family money
‘often’ or ‘always’. The presence of Italy, Spain, and Greece as European countries with the highest
level of worry is notable, given the lasting impact of the recent global recession on these three
countries.
Figure 2.8: Children worrying about how much money their family had
Never Sometimes Often Always
Russia
Norway
Hungary
Albania
Finland
France
Switzerland
Wales
Romania
Israel
Germany
Algeria
Belgium
S Korea
Croatia
England
Malta
Poland
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
Hong Kong SAR
Greece
Spain
India
Estonia
Vietnam
Nepal
Bangladesh
Italy
Namibia
S Africa
Chile
Indonesia
Brazil
Malaysia
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
How often children worried about family money
10 years old
21
In the last wave of the survey we noted a striking pattern of children aged 8 years worrying more
about this aspect of life than children in older age groups. This finding is broadly replicated in the
current wave (Figure 2.9).
Figure 2.9: Children worrying often or always about how much money their family has
22
Chapter 3
Overall well-being
Introduction
Concepts
Studies have found that experiences of overall well-being encompass various aspects. In research
literature on this topic, it is important to consider the distinction between ‘hedonic’ and ‘eudaimonic’
well-being; both approaches having roots in Greek philosophy.
Hedonic or subjective well-being (SWB) is often defined as an overarching concept reffering

appraisals that individuals make about their lives in general (Diener, 2001). The tripartite SWB model
was originally proposed by Andrews and Withey (1976) and developed by Diener (2001). It includes a
cognitive component, reffering to perceptions of global and domain-specific life satisfaction; and an
affective component comprising positive and negative moods and emotions (Diener, 2009). Positive
and negative affect are important components of the SWB conceptual model. Research on affect has
consistently demonstrated that they are two separate components with each making a unique
contribution to SWB. Positive Affect (PA) generally refers to the experience of positive moods and
emotions such as happiness, joy, alertness, and enthusiasm, while Negative Affect (NA) refers to
aversive moods such as sadness, and feelings stress and boredom.
Eudaimonic well-being, used synonomously with psychological well-being (PWB) and positive
functioning, focuses instead on living ‘the good life’ and functioning well. There are various
conceptualisations and definitions of this concept. Ryan & Deci (2001) refer to three basic
psychological needs namely, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, that they see as prerequisites
for well-being. Ryff (1989) on the other hand, conceptualises PWB as comprising six components
namely: self-acceptance, positive relations with others, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in
life, and personal growth. In this chapter we provide an analysis of the three components of
subjective well-being and psychological well-being..
Previous research
The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (HBSC) in the WHO Europe region has for
several years included a question on life satisfaction and other subjective questions (Currie et al.,
2012). The 2009-2010 wave of this survey showed a general decline in life satisfaction across age and
gender, particularly at older ages; girls tended to have lower life satisfaction than boys.
The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted with children aged 15 years
old in mainly high-income countries, asked several subjective questions in recent waves. The 2018
survey (OECD, 2019) found that boys had higher life satisfaction than girls in most countries, and a
general link between socio-economic advantage and higher life satisfaction. This study also included
measures of sense of purpose and positive and negative affect.
The second wave of the Children’s Worlds study, found the lowest and highest mean life satisfaction
scores ranging from 77 out of 100 in South Korea to 95 out of 100 in Romania, among children aged 10
and 12 years old. The study also used measures of positive affect and psychological well-being; the
23
same countries ranked highest and lowest for these measures. Life satisfaction and positive affect
scores typically declined between the ages of 10 and 12 in most countries. There were few gender
differences in life satisfaction, but boys showed significantly higher levels of positive affect in five out
of 18 countries. Psychological well-being scores were significantly higher for boys in five countries,
and significantly higher for girls in two others.
24
Questions asked
The scale used for life satisfaction in the first two waves of the survey was based on Huebner’s (1991)
Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS). Testing of the second wave data raised doubts about its use
for international comparisons (Casas, 2016). In the third wave we amended the measure, based on
discussions with children in diverse contexts. The revised items are shown in Box 3.
Another innovation in the current wave is the inclusion of questions on both positive and negative
affect. We selected three items for each – three positive affect states (happy, calm, and full of energy)
and three negative (sad, stressed, and bored). These items reflect activated, deactivated, and neutral
affect as proposed by Feldman Barrett & Russell (1998).
We used the same scale for psychological well-being as in the second wave. It had six questions,
tapping into the components of Ryff’s (1989) conceptualization of psychological well-being, discussed
above. Due to its more abstract wording, this scale was included only in the 12-year-old
questionnaire.
Box 3: Questions on overall well-being

Children’s Worlds Subjective Well-Being Scale (CW-SWBS)
Please say how much you agree with each of the following sentences about your life as a whole.
 I enjoy my life
 My life is going well
 I have a good life
 The things that happen in my life are excellent
 I like my life
 I am happy with my life
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not agree’ and 10
labelled ‘Totally agree’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point emoticon scale.
Positive and Negative Affect (CW-PNAS)
Below is a list of words that describe different feelings. Please read each word and tick a box to say how
much you have felt this way during the last two weeks. 0 means that you have not felt this way at all over
the last two weeks. 10 means that you have felt this way ‘extremely’ over the last two weeks.
 Happy
 Sad
 Calm
 Stressed
 Full of energy
 Bored
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at all’ and 10
labelled ‘Extremely’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point emoticon scale. In the affect items, only ‘happy’
and ‘sad’ were asked, with response on a four-point verbal frequency scale.
Psychological Well-Being Scale (CW-PWBS)
Please say how much you agree with each of the following sentences about your life as a whole.
 I like being the way I am
 I am good at managing my daily responsibilities
 People are generally friendly towards me
 I have enough choice about how I spend my time
 I feel that I am learning a lot at the moment
 I feel positive about my future
These questions applied to 10- and 12-year-olds only. Responses were on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-
10, with 0 labelled ‘Not agree’ and 10 labelled ‘Totally agree’.
25
Cognitive subjective well-being

Reliability analysis was conducted for the five items on the CW-SWBS. For the 8-year-old sample, we
obtained a Cronbach alpha of 0.85; for the 10- and 12-year-old samples we obtained Cronbach alphas
of 0.92 and 0.94 respectively, with all countries presented with acceptable levels. We further tested the
validity of the CW-SWBS using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across the three age groups. The
initial confirmatory factor model using all six items did not have an acceptable model fit. However,
the fit was acceptable across the three age groups when the item 'I like my life'1 was excluded, and
therefore we used only the other five items listed in Box 3. We conducted measurement invariance
testing of the cross-country comparability of the scale, using multi-group CFA (Meredith, 1993;
Millsap and Olivera-Aguilar, 2012). The results indicate that correlation and regression coefficients
can be compared across countries for each age group, but do not support cross-country comparisons
of mean scores for any of the three age groups. 2
Figure 3.1 presents mean scores and percentages of low satisfaction (less than '2' for 8-year-olds, less
than '5' for 10- and 12-year-olds) for the CW-SWBS across the three age groups. The 8-year-olds mean
score ranged from 3.11 out of 4 in Indonesia, to 3.65 in Hungary. Hungary also had the smallest
percentage (1.7%) of children with low life satisfaction, while Bangladesh had the highest (12.5%). An
apparent geographical pattern showed that countries with the highest means and lowest percentages
of low-satisfaction were all located in Europe; while countries with the lowest means and highest
percentages of low satisfaction were all located in Asia. Girls had significantly higher mean scores
than boys in Estonia, Indonesia, and Malta.
Mean scores for the 10-year-olds ranged from 7.94 in Vietnam to 9.71 in Albania, with apparent
geographical patterns. The countries ranking in the top six (Albania, Romania, Greece, Malta, Spain,
and Croatia) were all located in Europe, while the five lowest ranking countries/regions (Malaysia,
Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong SAR, and Vietnam) were all in Asia. Boys scored significantly
higher than girls in Belgium (Flanders), Chile, Hungary, Norway, and South Korea; while girls scored
significantly higher in Algeria, Estonia, Indonesia, and Russia (Table 3.2).
In the 12-year-old age group Albania again ranked highest (9.55), while Hong Kong SAR ranked
lowest (7.25) and there were stronger gender differences. Boys scored significantly higher than girls in
Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Chile, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Namibia, Poland, Romania, South
Korea, Spain, UK (Wales), and Vietnam. In Algeria, girls scored significantly higher than boys (Table
3.2).
Across the two older age groups, there was a significant decline in mean scores from 10-year-olds to
12-year-olds in 21 countries. Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Norway, Sri Lanka, South Africa, and
Vietnam did not show significant differences, while there were small non-significant increases in
Belgium (Flanders) and Israel.
1 Detailed results of each CFA are available on request

2 Detailed results of each Multi-group CFA are available on request
26
Figure 3.1: Subjective well-being mean and low satisfaction percentage
8 years old 10 years old 12 years old

% low satisfaction % low satisfaction % low satisfaction
Hungary 3.65 1.7% Albania 9.55 1.0%
Albania 9.71 0.3% Romania 9.34 1.4%
Romania 3.63 3.0% Romania 9.50 1.6%
Sri Lanka 9.01 4.3%
Spain (Catalonia) 3.59 2.6% Greece (Epirus) 9.36 1.5%
Malta 9.25 2.9%
India (Kolkata) 8.95 2.3%
Croatia 3.57 3.4% Spain (Catalonia) 9.23 1.9%
Israel 8.94 3.8%
Croatia 9.21 2.9% Norway 8.86 3.7%
Chile 3.55 2.9%
Sri Lanka 9.13 3.9% Spain (Catalonia) 8.82 2.5%
Poland 3.54 3.6% Algeria 9.11 4.0% Malta 8.80 5.9%
Malta 3.54 5.6% Hungary 9.10 2.9% Algeria 8.77 5.7%
Norway 9.05 3.6% Belgium (Flanders) 8.76 3.4%
Algeria 3.49 5.9% Hungary 8.75 4.3%
India (Kolkata) 9.05 3.1%
Israel 3.38 7.7% Switzerland 8.97 3.0% Croatia 8.71 4.5%
India (Kolkata) 3.38 7.1% Chile 8.97 5.4% South Africa 8.68 3.0%
Italy (Liguria) 8.92 4.2% Indonesia 8.65 2.0%
Estonia 3.38 6.4% Finland 8.81 4.4% Italy 8.59 4.3%
Brazil (Region) 3.38 7.2% South Africa 8.80 2.7% Finland 8.54 5.3%
Malaysia 3.33 5.0%
Poland 8.80 5.7% Bangladesh 8.52 5.4%
UK (England) 8.79 4.9% Nepal 8.52 2.4%
Finland 3.32 6.2% Brazil (Region) 8.78 5.6% Germany 8.2 5.2%
Belgium (Flanders) 3.31 9.4% Namibia (Khomas) 8.76 4.3% Namibia (Khomas) 8.20 7.5%
Estonia 8.75 4.7% Chile 8.16 9.2%
South Korea 3.30 9.4% Germany 8.73 4.5% Russia (Tyumen) 8.14 9.8%
Vietnam 3.28 3.5% Russia (Tyumen) 8.72 6.8% Poland 8.10 10.3%
Bangladesh 3.16 12.5%
Israel 8.70 5.1% Estonia 8.09 6.9%
UK (Wales) 8.70 5.7% UK (Wales) 7.97 8.5%
Taiwan 3.15 9.3% Indonesia 8.67 2.0% South Korea 7.88 4.3%
Indonesia 3.11 6.6% France 8.66 3.8% Taiwan 7.75 8.0%
Bangladesh 8.66 3.5% Brazil (Region) 7.72 10.9%
Mean (0-4) Belgium (Flanders) 8.64 4.8% Vietnam 7.6 12.9%
Malaysia 8.51 6.1%
Hong Kong SAR 7.25 12.6%
Taiwan 8.42 6.0%
South Korea 8.41 4.5% Mean (0-10)
Nepal 8.22 7.6%
Vietnam 7.94 8.2%
Mean (0-10) 27
Table 3.2: Subjective well-being by gender and age

Country Girls Boys 10yo 12yo
Albania 9.76 9.67 9.71 9.55 10>>12
Algeria 9.35 8.85 G>>B 9.11 8.77 10>>12
Bangladesh 8.77 8.53 8.66 8.52
Belgium (Flanders) 8.48 8.80 B>>G 8.64 8.76
Brazil 8.67 8.92 8.78 7.72 10>>12
Chile 8.86 9.12 B>G 8.97 8.16 10>>12
Croatia 9.27 9.15 9.21 8.71 10>>12
Estonia 8.86 8.63 G>B 8.75 8.09 10>>12
Finland 8.84 8.77 8.81 8.54 10>>12
France 8.59 8.72
Germany 8.77 8.69 8.73 8.21 10>>12
Greece 9.40 9.30
Hong Kong SAR 8.14 8.05 8.09 7.25 10>>12
Hungary 8.96 9.24 B>>G 9.10 8.75 10>>12
India 9.11 8.98 9.05 8.95
Indonesia 8.78 8.56 G>>B 8.67 8.65
Israel 8.82 8.59 8.70 8.94
Italy 8.98 8.85 8.92 8.59 10>>12
Malaysia 8.60 8.39
Malta 9.21 9.27 9.25 8.80 10>12
Namibia 8.74 8.79 8.76 8.20 10>>12
Nepal 8.33 8.11 8.22 8.52 10>12
Norway 8.94 9.16 B>G 9.05 8.86
Poland 8.90 8.71 8.80 8.10 10>>12
Romania 9.44 9.57 9.50 9.34 10>12
Russia 8.91 8.49 G>>B 8.72 8.14 10>>12
South Africa 8.80 8.81 8.80 8.68
South Korea 8.31 8.51 B>>G 8.41 7.88 10>>12
Spain 9.26 9.20 9.23 8.82 10>>12
Sri Lanka 9.04 9.23 9.13 9.01
Switzerland 8.89 9.06
Taiwan 8.39 8.46 8.42 7.75 10>>12
UK (England) 8.82 8.79
UK (Wales) 8.81 8.59 8.70 7.97 10>>12
Vietnam 8.03 7.84 7.94 7.63
Gender differences relate to 10-year-old sample
28
Positive affect
The 8-year-old survey asked children a single question about frequency of feeling happy, with four
response options – never, sometimes, often and always. Figure 3.2 shows the percentage of children
who indicated they were ‘always happy’ by country and gender. Scores ranged widely across
countries, from a 36% (boys) in Finland to over 78% (boys) in India.
Figure 3.2: Children ‘always’ feeling happy by gender
Boy Girl
India (Kolkata)* 78%

73%
Brazil 73%
74%
Romania 70%
75%
Malta 65%
74%
Chile* 68%
67%
Malaysia 64%
70%
Croatia 62%
70%
Algeria 58%
63%
Italy (Liguria) 57%
61%
Estonia 58%
60%
Hungary 55%
59%
Vietnam 51%
60%
Bangladesh* 46%
57%
Israel 45%
50%
South Korea 45%
49%
Taiwan 49%
44%
Poland 45%
48%
Spain (Catalonia) 46%
45%
Indonesia 39%
46%
Belgium (Flanders) 44%
37%
Finland 36%
38%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

% always feeling happy in the last two weeks
10 years old
29
For the 10- and 12-year-olds, positive affect was measured with three items (happy, calm, full of
energy) on a 0-10 point frequency scale with verbal anchors of ‘never’ to ‘always’ (Figure 3.3). The
proposed combined measure of positive affect based on these items does not seem to have worked
equally well in all countries. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were low in some countries. Multi-group
CFA testing indicated that this scale may not be suitable for direct comparisons between all countries,
for correlations and regressions, or for means. In this section we therefore present scores for each item
individually. We will undertake and publish further work on testing of the scale and its potential uses
and limitations in the future.
Table 3.3 shows mean scores out of 10 for each of the three positive affect items in the 10-year-old’s
survey that included all countries/regions. Some countries, such as Albania and Greece, scored
relatively high on all items, while others such as Bangladesh, Hong Kong SAR, and Taiwan scored
consistently low. In other countries there is more variation; for example Estonia ranked 3rd for feeling
calm, but much lower for the other two items, whereas Indonesia ranks much lower on happiness
than on the other two items.
Figure 3.4 provides a summary of the three-item scale. As expected from the individual item scores,
Albania and Greece (10-year-old age group only) feature at the top of the ranking, while Bangladesh,
Hong Kong SAR, and Taiwan rank at the bottom.
Boys scored significantly higher than girls in the 10-year-olds’ survey in Belgium (Flanders), Brazil,
Hungary, South Korea, Norway, and Switzerland; while girls scored significantly higher in Albania,
Algeria, Estonia, Indonesia and Italy. In the 12-year-olds’ survey there were a greater number of
significant mean differences. Boys scored significantly higher in Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Chile,
Croatia, Hungary, Italy, South Korea, Namibia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Vietnam, Spain, UK
(Wales); girls scored significantly higher in Algeria, Nepal and Norway.
There was a general pattern of declining positive affect between 10 and 12 years of age, and this
pattern was statistically significant in most countries.
30
Table 3.3: Positive affect items mean and country ranking

Happy Calm Full of energy
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Albania 9.84 1 9.10 1 9.57 1
Algeria 9.12 8 7.74 12 8.32 21
Bangladesh 8.21 34 7.18 25 6.62 34
Belgium
8.72 19 6.95 29 8.50 16
(Flanders)
Brazil 9.01 12 7.44 21 8.74 10
Chile 8.70 21 7.63 14 8.53 15
Croatia 9.32 3 8.10 7 9.04 4
Estonia 8.91 15 8.44 3 8.44 17
Finland 8.56 26 7.38 22 8.27 22
France 8.77 17 6.63 31 8.62 13
Germany 8.51 31 7.20 24 (a)
Greece 9.38 2 8.52 2 9.33 2
Hong Kong SAR 8.15 35 5.97 35 7.51 31
Hungary 8.89 16 8.21 5 8.72 11
India 9.17 7 7.52 17 8.04 27
Indonesia 8.53 28 8.15 6 8.84 8
Israel 8.55 27 7.49 18 8.79 9
Italy 9.06 10 6.88 30 9.02 5
Malaysia 9.04 11 8.23 4 8.68 12
Malta 9.22 5 7.54 16 8.99 7
Namibia 8.53 29 7.38 23 8.40 18
Nepal 8.61 24 7.90 9 7.37 32
Norway 8.51 30 6.61 32 7.83 29
Poland 8.93 13 7.75 11 7.20 33
Romania 9.25 4 8.04 8 9.11 3
Russia 8.62 23 7.77 10 7.95 28
S Africa 9.07 9 7.47 20 8.33 20
S Korea 8.61 25 6.30 33 8.36 19
Spain 9.20 6 7.71 13 9.00 6
Sri Lanka 8.92 14 7.14 26 8.56 14
Switzerland 8.77 18 7.02 28 8.10 26
Taiwan 8.29 33 6.05 34 7.81 30
UK (England) 8.72 20 7.57 15 8.26 23
UK (Wales) 8.66 22 7.12 27 8.25 24
Vietnam 8.39 32 7.48 19 8.21 25
10 years old
(a) Query for data in Germany
31
Figure 3.3: Positive affect mean and percentage low affect
10 years old 12 years old

% low positive affect % low positive affect
Albania 9.33 1.9%
Albania 9.52 1.2% Romania 8.59 3.0%
Greece 9.09 1.1%
Indonesia 8.47 3.1%
Croatia 8.83 2.0%
Algeria 8.31 5.7%
Romania 8.80 2.5%
Israel 8.28 5.6%
Malaysia 8.65 3.8%
Croatia 8.18 6.0%
Spain (Catalonia) 8.64 2.2%
Hungary 8.60 3.0%
Sri Lanka 8.16 8.0%
Estonia 8.60 3.6%
South Africa 8.14 5.8%
Malta 8.58 2.7%
Hungary 8.11 6.1%
Indonesia 8.51 5.3% Malta 8.10 6.7%
Brazil (Region) 8.39 5.2% India (Kolkata)* 8.10 5.1%
Algeria 8.39 5.4% Spain (Catalonia) 7.87 4.6%
Italy (Liguria) 8.32 3.2% Nepal* 7.85 7.8%
South Africa 8.31 6.4% Belgium (Flanders) 7.82 2.9%
Israel 8.28 6.6% Italy (Liguria) 7.80 7.1%
Chile* 8.28 7.1% Russia 7.75 10.0%
India (Kolkata)* 8.24 5.6% Estonia 7.70 9.7%
Sri Lanka 8.21 7.5% Finland 7.67 5.5%
England 8.18 7.2% Namibia (Khomas) 7.65 11.1%
Russia 8.11 5.9% Chile* 7.56 12.8%
Namibia (Khomas) 8.10 8.4% Vietnam 7.53 9.9%
Finland 8.06 3.6% UK (Wales) 7.44 11.2%
Belgium (Flandes) 8.06 3.6% Norway 7.41 6.5%
UK (Wales) 8.04 6.5% Brazil 7.38 14.4%
Vietnam 8.03 6.5% Poland 7.35 15.2%
France* 8.00 4.1% Bangladesh* 7.28 13.0%
Poland 7.98 6.3% South Korea 7.22 9.3%
Nepal* 7.97 8.1% Taiwan 6.88 15.2%
Switzerland 7.96 4.2% Hong Kong SAR 6.85 14.9%
South Korea 7.76 6.0%
Mean positive affect (0-10)
Norway 7.65 6.2%
Taiwan 7.38 11.0%
Bangladesh* 7.33 12.0%
Mean positive affect (0-10)
32
Negative affect
For the 8-year-olds’ survey we used one item (‘sad’) as a representation of negative affect. We asked
participants to indicate the frequency of feeling ‘sad’ over the past two weeks on a 4-point response
scale (never, sometimes, often, and always). Figure 3.4 shows the percentage of children who said
they were ‘always’ sad. Less than 2% of children responded this way in Italy and Finland, however, in
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Algeria over 10% did. There was no clear gender pattern, with boys and
girls presenting with higher percentages in 11 countries.
Figure 3.4: Children ‘always’ feeling sad by gender
Boy Girl
Malaysia 12%
16%
Indonesia 14%
11%
Algeria 13%
11%
Taiwan 7%
11%
Bangladesh* 9%
9%
Israel 8%
9%
Chile* 9%
7%
Malta 8%
8%
Vietnam 8%
7%
India (Kolkata)* 7%
7%
Estonia 8%
6%
Brazil (Region) 8%
5%
Belgium (Flanders) 6%
7%
Poland 7%
6%
Spain (Catalonia) 4%
5%
Romania 5%
2%
South Korea 3%
3%
Croatia 4%
2%
Hungary 3%
2%
Finland 3%
1%
Italy (Liguria) 2%
2%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

% of children always feeling sad
10 years old
33
Negative affect was measured in the 10- and 12-year-olds with three items (sad, stressed, bored), on a
0-10 point frequency scale with anchors ‘never’ to ‘always’ anchors. As with positive affect, we are not
yet certain of the statistical properties of this three-item scale for international comparative purposes;
thus we present the individual items as well as the scale.
Table 3.4 shows mean scores and ranking for the individual items. Note that in negative affect, a high
mean score indicates high negative affect, therefore countries are ranked in reverse order. Albania
consistently ranks high, with low mean scores for each item. Greece, however, with high positive
affect scores,also had more mixed scores for negative affect, ranking 30th with a relatively high score
of 4.9 for feeling stressed. There was variation in other countries as well, such as Romania and Wales –
both had higher levels of boredom than sadness or stress.
Figure 3.5 shows mean scale scores and proportions of high negative affect. Albania had the lowest
mean score of negative affect in both age groups (1.9 and 2.0). Malaysia had the highest score for the
10-year-olds’ (5.5), while Brazil had the highest mean for the 12-year-olds’ (5.1). More than one in ten
children had a high level of negative affect (score >5) in all countries. In many countries in the 10-
year-olds’ survey and more than one third in the 12-year-olds’ survey, more than half had high levels
of negative affect.
Across gender, there were significant mean differences in nine countries in the 10-year-olds’ sample.
Girls scored significantly higher in Belgium (Flanders), Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, South
Korea, Norway and Switzerland; while boys scored significantly higher in Indonesia. In 15 countries
there were significant mean differences in the 12-year-olds. Of these, in 14 countries/regions, girls
scored significantly higher than boys did, namely: Bangladesh, Belgium (Flanders), Chile, Croatia,
Finland Hong Kong SAR, Hungary, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Poland, Romania, Spain and UK
(Wales). Boys only scored significantly higher in Norway.
Across age in the countries that included both the 10-and 12-year-olds, while a decrease in mean
scores for negative affect was observed in eight countries, a general increase was observed in 22.
34
Table 3.4: Negative affect item means and country rankings

Sad Bored Stressed
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Albania 1.74 1 1.69 1 2.24 1
Algeria 2.28 2 3.57 10 3.40 7
Bangladesh 4.42 33 4.46 27 4.27 21
Belgium
(Flanders) 3.35 22 3.99 21 5.17 34
Brazil 3.24 21 4.53 28 4.44 23
Chile 2.87 12 4.43 26 3.44 8
Croatia 2.46 4 3.43 5 2.71 2
Estonia 2.70 8 3.20 2 3.92 17
Finland 3.39 23 4.14 22 3.24 5
France 2.96 16 3.64 11 4.13 19
Germany 2.97 17 3.49 7 3.80 14
Greece 2.93 14 3.29 4 4.90 30
Hong Kong SAR 3.69 26 3.79 15 4.91 31
Hungary 2.84 11 3.86 18 2.87 3
India 2.94 15 5.00 32 4.72 26
Indonesia 4.84 34 4.62 29 3.87 16
Israel 3.14 19 4.76 31 4.81 29
Italy 3.00 18 3.77 13 3.75 13
Malaysia 5.39 35 5.69 35 5.50 35
Malta 2.74 9 3.24 3 4.16 20
Namibia 4.25 32 5.22 34 4.93 32
Nepal 3.50 24 3.70 12 4.67 24
Norway 2.68 7 3.79 14 3.45 9
Poland 2.82 10 3.50 8 4.11 18
Romania 2.40 3 3.83 16 3.05 4
Russia 3.86 28 4.39 24 3.35 6
S Africa 4.01 31 5.14 33 5.03 33
S Korea 3.95 30 4.69 30 4.68 25
Spain 2.62 6 3.55 9 3.86 15
Sri Lanka 3.57 25 3.84 17 4.36 22
Switzerland 2.60 5 3.45 6 3.65 11
Taiwan 3.69 27 4.39 25 4.73 27
UK (England) 3.23 20 3.97 20 3.73 12
UK (Wales) 2.89 13 4.32 23 3.50 10
Vietnam 3.94 29 3.92 19 4.77 28
10 years old
35
Figure 3.5. Negative affect mean and percentage high negative affect

% high negative affect % high negative affect
Albania 1.9 15% Albania 2.0 13%
Croatia 2.9 18% Algeria 3.3 25%
Romania 3.1 23% Nepal 3.4 25%
Algeria 3.1 24%
Hungary 3.5 25%
Hungary 3.2 22%
Switzerland 3.2 21% Norway 3.6 22%
Estonia 3.3 22% Malta 3.7 27%
Norway 3.3 20% Croatia 3.7 25%
Spain 3.3 23% Belgium 3.7 24%
Malta 3.4 25% Sri Lanka 3.7 31%
Germany 3.4 22%
Germany 3.7 25%
Poland 3.5 26%
Italy 3.5 29% Spain 3.8 29%
France 3.6 26% Poland 4.0 30%
Finland 3.6 27% Italy 4.0 33%
Chile 3.6 26% Finland 4.0 34%
UK (Wales) 3.6 27% Estonia 4.1 33%
UK (England) 3.7 27%
Bangladesh 4.1 34%
Greece 3.7 27%
Russia 3.9 31% S Africa 4.2 36%
Sri Lanka 3.9 35% Israel 4.3 39%
Nepal 4.0 33% Romania 4.3 36%
Brazil 4.1 35% Indonesia 4.4 35%
Hong Kong SAR 4.1 35% UK (Wales) 4.4 37%
Belgium 4.2 34%
India 4.4 39%
Vietnam 4.2 36%
India 4.2 34% Chile 4.4 37%
Israel 4.2 35% Vietnam 4.6 40%
Taiwan 4.3 36% Namibia 4.6 42%
Bangladesh 4.4 40% Taiwan 4.7 41%
S Korea 4.4 40% Russia 4.8 42%
Indonesia 4.4 38%
Hong Kong SAR 4.8 45%
S Africa 4.7 44%
Namibia 4.8 43% S Korea 4.9 46%
Malaysia 5.5 56% Brazil 5.1 51%
Mean negative affect (0-10) Mean negative affect (0-10)
36
Psychological well-being
The Cronbach's alpha for the CW-PWBS was 0.84 for the overall 12-year-old age group, with all
countries/regions presenting with acceptable coefficients. The results of the CFA on the scale,
however, revealed some doubt about the use of the scale for cross-country comparisons. As with
affect, we therefore present the individual items as well as the overall scale score.
Table 3.6 shows the pattern of mean scores for individual items. Albania scored particularly high
across all items, while Wales scored lowest. Some countries scored higher or lower on one particular
item; for example, Brazil and Chile scored notably lower for managing responsibilities than other
items. Low scores for people being friendly in Namibia, and for learning a lot in Hungary and Poland
also stand out; this suggests that more may be learned from a detailed analysis and contextual
understanding of these different patterns.
Table 3.6: Psychological well-being mean score by item

Like way I Manage my People are Choice Learning a Positive re:
am responsibilities friendly time lot future
Albania 9.62 9.55 9.63 9.53 9.56 9.58
Algeria 9.05 8.83 8.43 8.28 8.98 8.77
Bangladesh 8.57 8.32 7.93 7.95 8.80 9.01
Belgium (Flanders) 8.85 8.63 8.84 8.92 7.95 8.77
Brazil 8.00 7.20 7.97 7.67 7.92 7.91
Chile 8.20 7.08 8.07 7.96 7.70 7.99
Croatia 9.05 8.33 8.74 8.57 8.33 8.69
Estonia 8.36 8.15 8.20 8.30 7.84 8.36
Finland 8.14 8.57 8.54 8.67 7.91 8.53
Germany 8.03 7.65 8.43 8.23 7.75 8.21
Hong Kong SAR 7.45 6.98 7.65 7.27 7.39 7.25
Hungary 8.05 8.59 8.76 8.75 7.13 8.42
India 9.30 8.77 8.92 8.49 9.03 9.24
Indonesia 8.67 7.84 8.43 7.88 8.46 8.36
Israel 9.05 8.62 8.81 8.82 7.96 8.97
Italy 8.64 8.15 8.53 8.21 8.39 8.43
Malta 9.10 8.78 8.72 8.72 8.93 8.98
Namibia 8.86 8.05 7.06 7.80 8.79 8.73
Nepal 8.65 8.63 8.21 8.09 8.43 8.33
Norway 8.85 8.38 8.86 8.78 7.97 8.71
Poland 8.15 8.19 8.14 8.25 6.81 7.95
Romania 9.13 8.46 8.84 8.82 7.65 9.05
Russia 7.83 7.90 7.83 7.95 7.80 8.02
S Africa 8.97 8.47 7.98 8.29 8.81 8.92
S Korea 7.74 7.34 7.98 7.84 8.05 7.96
Spain 9.04 8.28 8.77 8.51 8.59 8.77
Sri Lanka 8.99 8.70 8.60 8.61 8.98 8.96
Taiwan 8.53 7.56 8.22 7.79 7.94 7.80
UK (Wales) 6.90 6.94 7.06 7.37 6.89 7.14
Vietnam 7.78 6.81 7.71 7.24 7.95 7.43
10 years old
37
There was a relatively wide range in mean scores on the overall scale, from a low of 7.06 in UK
(Wales) to a high of 9.59 in Albania (Figure 3.6). Other countries that ranked high in mean scores were
India (8.96), Malta (8.88), Sri Lanka (8.82), and Algeria (8.75). These countries/regions also tended to
have lower percentages of low psychological well-being. Albania, which had the highest mean score,
also presented with the second lowest percentage of low psychological well-being (0.73%); while
Hong Kong SAR, which presented with the second lowest mean score (7.33), also had the highest
percentage of low psychological well-being (8.5%). There does not appear to be an obvious
geographical pattern, with diverse countries featuring in the top half of the rankings.
Across gender, there were significant mean differences in eight countries. Boys scored significantly
higher than girls did in Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Finland, Hungary, South Korea, Poland, and
Russia; while girls scored significantly higher in Algeria.
Figure 3.6: Psychological well-being mean and percentage low well-being
12 years old
% low well-being
Albania 9.59 0.73%

India (Kolkata)* 8.96 0.7%
Malta 8.88 3.6%
Sri Lanka 8.82 3.7%
Algeria 8.75 4.2%
Romania 8.68 2.6%
Israel 8.67 2.8%
Belgium (Flanders) 8.66 1.9%
Croatia 8.62 3.4%
Norway 8.59 3.1%
Bangladesh* 8.44 3.2%
Nepal* 8.40 3.5%
Italy 8.39 3.4%
Finland 8.39 4.0%
Hungary 8.30 3.8%
Indonesia 8.28 2.2%
Namibia (Khomas) 8.21 4.4%
Estonia 8.20 7.1%
Germany 8.08 3.7%
Taiwan 7.98 4.7%
Poland 7.92 7.2%
Russia 7.89 6.5%
Chile* 7.83 5.5%
Brazil 7.79 5.9%
Vietnam 7.48 5.6%
(UK) Wales 7.06 6.3%
Mean satisfaction (0-10)
38
Chapter 4
Family life
Overview
Family is one of the key factors associated with subjective well-being (Joronen and Åstedt-Kurki
2005). The positive family experience influences children’s subjective well-being, and is identified as a
stronger predictors of life satisfaction than peer experience (Gilman and Huebner 2003; Dew and
Huebner 1994). A good relationship with a close person in the family is an important factor for
children’s subjective well-being. A harmonious family atmosphere is also conducive to children’s
positive development and well-being.
The family in its diverse forms, provides an intimate environment where children can feel cared for
and protected. It is also a place where children have opportunities to develop agency and autonomy
in age-appropriate ways as they mature. For this reason, Children’s Worlds asks questions not only
about care, support, and safety, but also about children’s feelings of being listened to by their parents
and being given opportunities to be involved in making decisions about their own lives.
Questions asked
In the survey children were asked about satisfaction with the people they live with, and how much
they agree with some statements about their family life. The questions asked are shown in the box
below.
Box 4: Questions about the people you live with

Satisfaction question
How satisfied are you with the people you live with?
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at
all satisfied’ and 10 labelled ‘Totally satisfied’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point scale with
emoticons.
Agreement questions
How much do you agree with each of these sentences?
 There are people in my family who care about me
 If I have a problem, people in my family will help me
 We have a good time together in my family
 I feel safe at home
 My parent/s listen to me and take what I say into account
 My parent/s and I make decisions about my life together (only 10- and 12-year-olds asked)
Response options were on a unipolar 5-point agreement scale from ‘Not agree’ to ‘Totally agree’.
39
Overall satisfaction
We use the question about satisfaction ‘with the people you live with’ as the key measure for this
domain. Figure 4.1 summarizes children’s responses to this question by country and age group.
Overall satisfaction levels of children were mostly high. In the 10-year-old age group, mean
satisfaction levels ranged from 7.9 in Vietnam to 9.8 in Albania. The proportion of children who were
dissatisfied with the people they live with (a score of less than five on the 11-point scale) ranged from
approximately 1% in Croatia, Hungary, and Estonia, to 18% in Vietnam.
Though overall satisfaction levels were high, there was an apparent geographical pattern. Most of the
countries towards the top of the chart are in Eastern Europe, namely: Albania, Croatia, Romania, and
Hungary. Further, four Asian countries/regions, Vietnam, Indonesia, Hong Kong SAR, and Nepal as
well as Namibia were at the bottom of the table.
The geographical patterns in the other two age groups are mostly similar. Notable exceptions were
Finland and Israel, with relatively low satisfaction ratings for the 8-year-old, and higher rankings for
the older two age groups.
Table 4.1. presents gender and age differences for this indicator. Girls had higher mean satisfaction in
ten countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Croatia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Israel, Poland and Spain.
In 12 of the 30 countries that included the 10- and 12-year-olds, satisfaction with family decreased
significantly between the ages of 10 and 12 years. The only exception was Indonesia, where it was
significantly higher at 12 years old.
40
Figure 4.1: Satisfaction with ‘people you live with’ mean and percentage low satisfaction

% low satisfaction % low satisfaction
% low satisfaction
India 3.8 0.7% Albania 9.8 1.9% Albania 9.8 1.7%
Croatia 3.8 0.8%
Croatia 9.6 1.0% Romania 9.5 1.1%
Greece 9.5 1.4% India 9.4 2.1%
Spain 3.8 1.0% India 9.5 2.4% Israel 9.4 2.3%
Hungary 3.8 0.6% Romania 9.5 2.3% Hungary 9.4 1.0%
Brazil 3.8 1.1% Hungary 9.4 1.0%
Malta 9.4 2.3%
Norway 9.3 0.9%
Romania 3.7 1.5%
Algeria 9.3 3.7% Croatia 9.3 1.9%
Malta 3.7 1.7%
Italy 9.3 2.3% Italy 9.2 1.6%
Italy 3.7 0.5%
Spain 9.3 3.0% Spain 9.2 2.6%
Chile 3.7 2.0% Chile 9.3 2.4% Malta 9.2 2.9%
Algeria 3.7 2.1% Estonia 9.3 1.1% Finland 9.1 1.3%
S Korea 3.7 0.9% Israel 9.3 2.4% Sri Lanka 9.1 6.1%
Malaysia 3.7 4.4% Switzerland 9.3 1.7% Belgium 9.0 1.2%
Poland 3.6 1.0% Norway 9.3 1.8%
Malaysia 9.2 1.7%
Algeria 9.0 6.9%
Belgium 3.6 2.9% Poland 8.9 3.5%
Poland 9.2 2.7%
Germany 3.6 1.3% England 9.2 1.7% Estonia 8.9 1.6%
Estonia 3.6 2.3% Finland 9.2 1.7% Bangladesh 8.9 3.3%
Israel 3.6 3.7% Wales 9.2 3.0% S Korea 8.9 2.3%
Finland 3.6 0.9% S Korea 9.1 1.7% Russia 8.8 4.2%
Banglad… 3.5 2.5% Russia 9.1 2.5% Wales 8.8 5.4%
Brazil 9.0 5.6%
Taiwan 3.5 3.1% Brazil 8.8 4.8%
Belgium 8.9 3.2%
Indonesia 3.4 7.1% Taiwan 8.9 3.0%
Nepal 8.8 3.0%
Vietnam 3.4 1.4% Sri Lanka 8.9 8.0% Chile 8.7 5.3%
Mean satisfaction (0 to 4) France 8.9 2.8% Indonesia 8.7 4.6%
Bangladesh 8.8 2.4% S Africa 8.7 5.3%
S Africa 8.8 6.4% Germany 8.6 5.9%
Germany 8.7 6.5% Taiwan 8.4 3.7%
Nepal 8.6 6.2% Namibia 8.1 4.3%
Namibia 8.5 4.7% Vietnam 8.0 11.7%
Hong Kong 8.5 3.6%
Indonesia 8.4 9.8% Hong Kong 7.7 7.8%
Vietnam 7.918.0% Mean satisfaction (0-10)
41
Table 4.1: Satisfaction with ‘people you live with’ by gender and age
Girls Boys 10yo 12yo
Albania 9.84 9.77 9.80 9.79
Algeria 9.46 9.23 G>B 9.35 9.01 10>>12
Bangladesh 8.99 8.60 G>B 8.80 8.91
Belgium (Flanders) 8.91 8.88 8.89 9.03
Brazil 9.12 8.92 9.04 8.76 10>>12
Chile 9.35 9.25 9.29 8.73 10>>12
Croatia 9.65 9.51 G>B 9.58 9.31 10>>12
Estonia 9.36 9.21 9.29 8.92 10>>12
Finland 9.30 9.09 9.20 9.11
France 8.95 8.77 G>B
Germany 8.82 8.59 8.72 8.63
Greece 9.62 9.35 G>>B
Hong Kong SAR 8.45 8.51 8.48 7.70 10>>12
Hungary 9.39 9.46 9.43 9.39
India 9.60 9.38 G>B 9.49 9.41
Indonesia 8.63 8.25 G>>B 8.44 8.73 12>>10
Israel 9.36 9.17 G>B 9.27 9.39
Italy 9.43 9.26 9.34 9.21
Malaysia 9.27 9.19
Malta 9.46 9.30 9.38 9.19
Namibia 8.67 8.40 8.55 8.14 10>>12
Nepal 8.67 8.51 8.59 8.75
Norway 9.32 9.21 9.27 9.31
Poland 9.38 9.06 G>>B 9.22 8.93 10>>12
Romania 9.41 9.58 9.48 9.50
Russia 9.23 8.91 9.08 8.80 10>>12
S Africa 8.84 8.73 8.79 8.73
S Korea 9.10 9.09 9.09 8.88 10>>12
Spain 9.44 9.19 G>>B 9.32 9.20
Sri Lanka 8.96 8.85 8.87 9.09
Taiwan 8.82 8.94 8.89 8.42 10>>12
UK (Wales) 9.21 9.10 9.15 8.77 10>>12
Vietnam 8.03 7.83 7.93 8.03
42
Perceptions of family life

We used six agreement questions to measure children’s perception of family life. These questions
were optional, and some were asked in one age group within all countries/regions, except
Bangladesh.
Table 4.2 shows the percentage of 10-year-olds who totally agreed with the six questions in the
survey.
 The highest levels of agreement were for safety at home (76%) and feeling cared about (75%).
The lowest levels of agreement were for parents listening (56%) and making joint decisions
about their lives (55%).
 Across counties, Sri Lanka and Estonia had the highest level of agreement, and they ranked in
the top ten for all six questions.
 Ten countries/regions ranked in the bottom half for all ten questions, namely: Belgium
(Flanders), Brazil, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Italy, Russia, South Africa
and Vietnam.
 Very few children indicated they did not agree at all with the statements. For example, there
was no country in which more than one in 20 children did not agree that they felt safe at
home. In ten countries: Algeria, Brazil, Germany, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, Russia, South
Africa, and Vietnam, the proportion was above one in 50 children.
 The highest levels of not agreeing at all were for the statement about children being involved
in decisions about their lives. Among the 10-year-olds, this proportion was above one in 20
children in most countries, and above one in 10 in Brazil (Figure 4.2).
There were relatively few significant gender differences in the 10-year-old age group for the family
life questions. There was, however, a pattern of girls being more likely than boys to feel they made
decisions together with parents about life. In six countries/regions boys reported making more
decisions together with parents: Hong Kong SAR, Malta, Sri Lanka, Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, and
Russia; while girls reported making more decisions together with parents in all other countries
(Figure 4.3).
A fairly consistent of increasing agreement across age groups for all questions about family life was
observed. Figure 4.4 provides an illustration of age group patterns for the question about safety at
home. The increasing pattern was most obvious between ages 8 and 10, with the average percent
totally agreeing percentage increasing from 54% for the 8-year-olds to 68% for the 10-year-olds.
43
Table 4.2: Children totally agreeing with questions about family – percentages and country
ranking
Parents
Family Help with Have a good Parents
Feel safe joint
care problems time listen
decisions
% rank % rank % rank % rank % rank % rank
Albania 83% 6 81% 4 80% 3 85% 4 57% 17 68% 2
Algeria 77% 18 72% 15 75% 6 80% 14 65% 6 65% 5

Belgium (Flanders) 72% 24 69% 20 68% 18 79% 17 50% 25 46% 28
Brazil 67% 28 66% 23 63% 24 67% 30 34% 33 42% 31
Chile 82% 8 76% 13 71% 13 82% 12 62% 8 52% 20
Croatia 82% 9 78% 7 74% 7 83% 7 55% 19 59% 15
Estonia 87% 1 77% 10 81% 1 88% 2 60% 9 66% 4
Finland 77% 17 64% 26 70% 16 83% 9 62% 7 57% 17
France 74% 21 70% 19 69% 17 73% 23 51% 24 51% 21
Germany 71% 25 64% 27 60% 25 76% 21 53% 22 27% 33
Greece 82% 2 73% 9 83% 8 50% 24
Hong Kong SAR 54% 32 51% 32 48% 32 66% 31 37% 31 46% 27
Hungary 83% 5 77% 9 76% 4 87% 3 67% 4 53% 19
India 80% 13 70% 15 76% 20 68% 2
Indonesia 48% 33 43% 33 50% 31 50% 34 46% 28 38% 32
Israel 78% 16 67% 22 63% 23 80% 15 68% 3 64% 9
Italy 77% 19 70% 17 45% 33 73% 24 42% 30 47% 26
Malaysia 66% 29 61% 28 53% 30 69% 28 37% 32 64% 10
Malta 80% 14 73% 14 73% 10 74% 22 57% 18 62% 13
Namibia 69% 26 58% 29 65% 21 71% 26 51% 23 64% 8
Nepal 67% 27 66% 25 56% 28 70% 27 59% 15 62% 12
Norway 83% 7 77% 11 75% 5 84% 5 67% 5 65% 6
Poland 85% 3 80% 5 73% 8 90% 1 55% 20 65% 7
Romania 79% 15 77% 12 65% 20 79% 16 60% 12 67% 3
Russia 65% 30 55% 30 53% 29 68% 29 50% 26 45% 30
S Africa 61% 31 53% 31 63% 33 48% 27 55% 18
S Korea 73% 22 79% 6 64% 22 72% 25 58% 16 51% 22
Spain 83% 4 82% 3 72% 11 82% 11 60% 11 50% 23
Sri Lanka 86% 2 86% 1 81% 2 83% 10 78% 1 78% 1
Switzerland 81% 11 77% 8 72% 12 83% 6 60% 10 48% 25
Taiwan 73% 23 70% 18 60% 26 78% 19 53% 21 62% 11
UK (England) 81% 12 71% 16 71% 14 82% 13 60% 14 60% 14
UK (Wales) 81% 10 69% 21 66% 19 79% 18 60% 13 58% 16
Vietnam 74% 20 66% 24 59% 27 63% 32 45% 29 46% 29
75% 70% 66% 76% 56% 55%
10 years old
44
Figure 4.2: Children who did not agree 'my parents and I make decisions about my life together'
S Korea 1.7%
Finland 2.3%
Estonia 2.7%
Switzerland 2.7%
Taiwan 2.9%
Romania 3.0%
Albania 3.1%
Norway 3.6%
Malta 3.6%
Poland 3.7%
Sri Lanka 3.7%
Hungary 4.0%
Italy 4.3%
Croatia 4.9%
Spain 5.0%
UK (England) 5.0%
Germany 5.1%
Nepal 5.6%
Hong Kong 5.7%
UK (Wales) 6.1%
Malaysia 6.1%
Russia 6.1%
Israel 6.2%
France 6.7%
Algeria 6.7%
Namibia 6.9%
Greece 7.0%
Belgium 7.7%
Indonesia 8.5%
Chile 8.8%
S Africa 9.3%
Vietnam 9.4%
Brazil 12.8%
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%
% of children who did not agree that
'My parents and I make decisions about my life together'
10 years old
45
Figure 4.3: Children totally agreeing 'my parents and I make decisions about my life together' by
gender
10 years old
Question not asked in Bangladesh and India
46
Figure 4.4: Children totally agreeing they 'feel safe at home' by age
10 years old
47
Chapter 5
Friends and peers
Overview
School environments in which children spend a significant portion of their time affects their
subjective well-being; with children's peer relationships, in particular having a strong effect. Pleasant
relationships like talking and playing with peers have been shown to have positive effects on
subjective well-being, while unpleasant relationships such as bullying have negative effects on
subjective well-being (Huebner et al. 2004; Nickerson and Nagle 2004).
Questions asked
In the survey, children were asked about satisfaction with their friends and how much they agree
with some statements about their relationship with friends, as shown in the box below.
Box 5: Questions about your friends

How satisfied are you with your friends?
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at all
satisfied’ and 10 labelled ‘Totally satisfied’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point scale with emoticons.
Agreement questions
 I have enough friends
 My friends are usually nice to me
 Me and my friends get along well together
 If I have a problem, I have a friend who will support me
Response options were on a unipolar 5-point agreement scale from ‘not agree’ to ‘totally agree’.
48
We used the question about satisfaction ‘with your friends’ as the key measure for this domain.
Figure 5.1 summarizes children's responses to children to this question by country and age group.
These findings show that overall satisfaction levels of children were mostly high. In the 10-year-old
age group, mean satisfaction levels ranged from 7.1 in Vietnam to 9.6 in Albania. The proportion of
children who were not satisfied at all with their friends (less than five on 10-point scale) ranged from
approximately 1% in Albania and Croatia, to approximately 20% in both Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
An apparent geographical pattern, and showed that countries with satisfaction scores of 9.0 and
higher satisfaction scores were in all Europe: Albania, Croatia, Switzerland, Malta, Greece, Spain,
Romania, France, Norway, and Finland; while five Asian countries (Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Malaysia,
Nepal, and Bangladesh) had the lowest scores.
The geographical patterns in the other two age groups were mostly similar. One notable exception is
South Korea, which had one of the lowest levels of satisfaction in the 8-year-olds, yet ranked in the
middle in the two older age groups.
There were few significant gender variations for this indicator. Girls had higher mean satisfaction in
Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, and Estonia, while boys had higher mean satisfaction in Croatia,
Malaysia, Norway, and South Korea (Table 5.1).
Overall there was some tendency for lower satisfaction among 12-year-olds than 10-year-olds in 12 of
30 countries. However, Belgium (Flanders) showed the opposite pattern, 12-year-old children were
significantly happier with their friends than 10-year-olds.
49
Figure 5.1: Satisfaction with friends mean and percentage low satisfaction

India 3.8 2% % low satisfaction
Albania 9.6 1% Albania 9.4 1%
Spain 3.7 1% Finland 9.0 2%
Croatia 9.2 1%
Croatia 3.7 1% Switzerland 9.1 2% Norway 9.0 3%
Malta 3.7 3% Malta 9.0 3% Hungary 8.9 2%
Romania 3.6 1% Greece 9.0 2% Romania 8.9 3%
Spain 9.0 3% Malta 8.8 3%
Hungary 3.6 1% Spain 8.8 3%
Romania 9.0 3%
Algeria 3.6 3% France 9.0 3% India 8.8 5%
Brazil 3.6 3% Norway 9.0 3% Belgium 8.8 1%
Finland 3.5 1% Finland 9.0 2% Germany 8.7 4%
Chile 3.5 4% Estonia 8.9 2% Croatia 8.7 4%
Italy 8.9 4% Italy 8.6 3%
Italy 3.5 2% Chile 8.6 6%
Hungary 8.9 2%
Belgium 3.5 4% Chile 8.9 4% S Korea 8.6 2%
Estonia 3.5 2% India 8.8 6% Israel 8.6 4%
Israel 3.5 3% Russia 8.8 3% Estonia 8.6 3%
Poland 3.5 2%
Wales 8.7 4% Russia 8.6 5%
Brazil 8.7 5% Wales 8.5 5%
Indonesia 3.4 3% Algeria 8.7 7% Taiwan 8.4 4%
Bangladesh 3.4 3% England 8.7 4% Indonesia 8.4 5%
Malaysia 3.4 6% Germany 8.7 5% Bangladesh 8.3 7%
Taiwan 3.4 3% S Korea 8.6 3% Sri Lanka 8.3 11%
Belgium 8.6 5% Brazil 8.2 8%
S Korea 3.3 3% S Africa 8.6 9% Algeria 8.2 10%
Vietnam 3.2 3% Hong Kong 8.6 4% S Africa 8.2 9%
Mean satisfaction (0 to 4) Taiwan 8.5 4% Nepal 8.2 7%
Poland 8.5 5% Poland 8.0 8%
Indonesia 8.4 7% Hong Kong 7.8 7%
Israel 8.4 8% Namibia 7.6 11%
Namibia 8.4 7% Vietnam 7.4 14%
Bangladesh 8.4 6%
Nepal 8.2 7% Mean satisfaction (0-10)
Malaysia 8.0 10%
Sri Lanka 7.6 20%
Vietnam 7.1 20%
50
Table 5.1: Satisfaction with friends by gender and age

Albania 9.71 9.54 G>B 9.63 9.39 10>>12
Algeria 8.84 8.56 G>B 8.71 8.21 10>>12
Bangladesh 8.60 8.10 G>B 8.35 8.30
Belgium (Flanders) 8.52 8.64 8.58 8.79 12>10
Brazil 8.68 8.82 8.74 8.25 10>>12
Chile 8.94 8.78 8.87 8.65 10>12
Croatia 9.14 9.30 B>G 9.21 8.68 10>>12
Estonia 8.98 8.75 G>B 8.87 8.58 10>>12
Finland 9.04 8.91 8.97 9.02
France 9.06 8.91
Germany 8.77 8.61 8.70 8.69
Greece 8.99 9.06
Hong Kong SAR 8.65 8.48 8.56 7.84 10>>12
Hungary 8.84 8.89 8.87 8.91
India 8.92 8.73 8.83 8.82
Indonesia 8.39 8.35 8.38 8.35
Israel 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.58
Italy 8.85 8.89 8.87 8.65 10>>12
Malaysia 7.81 8.24 B>>G
Malta 9.14 8.89 9.02 8.83
Namibia 8.22 8.53 8.36 7.63 10>>12
Nepal 8.30 8.16 8.23 8.18
Norway 8.84 9.15 B>>G 8.99 8.95
Poland 8.60 8.37 8.49 7.96 10>>12
Romania 9.03 8.97 9.00 8.87
Russia 8.87 8.67 8.78 8.58
S Africa 8.54 8.61 8.57 8.20 10>>12
S Korea 8.52 8.73 B>>G 8.62 8.64
Spain 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.83 10>12
Sri Lanka 7.81 7.38 7.59 8.29
Taiwan 8.56 8.54 8.55 8.43
UK (Wales) 8.67 8.81 8.75 8.55
Vietnam 7.36 6.94 7.14 7.37
51
Perceptions of peer relationships

Several agreement questions were used to measure children’s perception of peer relationships. These
questions were optional, and some were asked in at least one age group in all countries, except
Bangladesh.
Table 5.2 shows the percentage of 10-year-old children who totally agreed with the four questions in
the survey.
 The highest levels of agreement were in response to having enough friends and having a
friend supporting them if they had a problem. Twice as many children totally agreed that
they have enough friends in Estonia (75%), compared to Indonesia (38%). In Albania,
Hungary, and Poland, 77% of children reported that they have friends who will support them
when they have a problem, while only 45% of children in Indonesia did.
 The lowest levels of agreement were in response to friends being nice. Albania ranked highest
in terms of percentage of children totally agreeing (67%), which was more than than double
compared to Malaysia (32%).
 There was a similar pattern for friends getting along, as with the friends being nice, ranging
from 38% in Malaysia to 77% in Albania.
 Overall, Albania, Sri Lanka, and Spain ranked in the top ten for all questions about
perceptions of peer relationships. Seven other countries/regions, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia,
Israel, Malaysia, Russia, South Africa, and Vietnam, ranked in the bottom half for all four
questions.
The strongest gender differences in this set of question was for feeling supported by friends. In almost
all countries (21) girls were more likely than boys to totally agree (Figure 5.2), while in Sri Lanka boys
felt more supported than girls.
As demonstrated in Figure 5.3, children were more likely to feel that their friends were nice to them at
a younger age; this indicates children felt less positive about their friendships as they got older.
52
Table 5.2: Children totally agreeing with questions about friends – percentage and country
ranking
Enough friends Friends nice Friends get along Friends support
% rank % rank % rank % rank
Albania 71% 2 67% 1 77% 1 77% 3
Algeria 64% 14 60% 4 56% 13 60% 18
Belgium (Flanders) 64% 16 47% 26 45% 24 54% 27
Brazil 44% 33 48% 22 56% 14 58% 20
Chile 61% 18 57% 8 67% 2 69% 7
Croatia 70% 3 52% 13 61% 8 69% 6
Estonia 75% 1 54% 10 62% 6 55% 26
Finland 63% 17 45% 28 55% 15 46% 32
France 67% 8 61% 16
Germany 60% 21 52% 12 44% 34
Greece 65% 10 50% 19 67% 9
Hong Kong SAR 56% 26 47% 24 50% 22 57% 22
Hungary 66% 9 51% 16 64% 4 77% 2
India 65% 11 62% 2 67% 8
Indonesia 38% 34 44% 29 43% 25 45% 33
Israel 60% 19 50% 18 57% 23
Italy 53% 31 34% 32 55% 16 63% 14
Malaysia 55% 28 32% 33 38% 27 52% 29
Malta 57% 23 53% 11 60% 9 62% 15
Namibia 64% 15 48% 23 51% 21 64% 12
Nepal 56% 25 51% 14 53% 19 56% 25
Norway 65% 12 60% 5 63% 5 66% 10
Poland 67% 6 45% 27 54% 18 77% 1
Romania 54% 29 51% 15 58% 12 65% 11
Russia 51% 32 43% 30 48% 23 49% 30
S Africa 57% 24 49% 21 57% 24
S Korea 54% 30 47% 25 59% 11 54% 28
Spain 67% 7 58% 7 62% 7 73% 5
Sri Lanka 70% 4 62% 3 66% 3 75% 4
Switzerland 70% 5 58% 6 59% 19
Taiwan 65% 13 56% 9 60% 10 58% 21
UK (England) 60% 20 50% 17 55% 17 63% 13
UK (Wales) 56% 27 50% 20 52% 20 61% 17
Vietnam 59% 22 40% 31 41% 26 46% 31
61% 51% 56% 61%
10 years old
53
Figure 5.2: Children totally agreeing friends would support them by gender
10 years old
54
Figure 5.3: Children totally agreeing friends are nice by age
10 years old
55
Chapter 6
School
Overview
Research on children’s well-being over the past two decades, has demonstrated the importance of
school and school-related variables on children’s well-being. In particular, the school experience,
satisfaction with school, relationships with teachers and classmates, safety and bullying,
achievements and abilities, school marks and things learned at school, have demonstrated various
strengths of association with overall life satisfaction and well-being (see reviews by Huebner et al.,
2014; see also Casas & Gonzalez, 2017).
Recent trends in research on school-related variables and children’s subjective well-being, have
included large-scale samples using data made available by multinational studies, such as the Health
Behaviour in School Children (HBSC), the Programme for International Students’ Assessment (PISA),
and the Children’s Worlds International Survey on Children’s Well-Being. Furthermore, cross-cultural
multinational qualitative studies such as the Children’s Understanding of Well-Being (CUWB) have
provided a rich corpus of in-depth qualitative data (see Fattore, Fegter, and Hunner-Kreisel, 2018).
The availability of these data have not only increased our understanding of how school-related
variables influence children’s subjective well-being, but has also initiated new debates, questions, and
theorisations.
One area of research related to school experience that has received an increasing amount of empirical
attention is school climate. While the concept lacks definitional consensus, it generally refers to “quality
and character of school life” (Cohen et al., 2009), “quality of relationships amongst students, teachers
and school staff” (Hoy and Sweetland, 2001), or more comprehensively as “social characteristics of a
school in terms of relationships among students and staff/teachers, learning and teaching emphasis,
values and norms, and shared approaches and practices” (Maxwell et al., 2017, pp. 1-2). In the latest
round of the PISA (OECD, 2019), school climate was identified as a significant factor influencing
students’ academic achievements. Recent literature (e.g. Steinmayr et al., 2018) found school climate
to be significantly related to students’ subjective well-being. School climate and additional school
related variables have also featured in other multinational studies.
The Children’s Worlds study has highlighted the importance of school-related variables on children’s
subjective well-being, and made significant contributions to extant literature. Using data from the
second wave of the study, Casas and Gonzalez (2017) proposed the ‘two-world hypothesis’ wherein
school represents two separate domains: one related to experience and activity connected to learning
and relationships with teachers; the other related to friends and classmates. They found strong
support for this hypothesis in six out of 15 countries, and modest support in another three. Their
results suggest that in some countries, the use of a single-item for ‘satisfaction with school’ may not
be sufficient. They propose ‘satisfaction with your life as a student’ as a potential alternative to
capture both ‘worlds’, however, they caution that it may not be comparable across different socio-
cultural contexts.
56
The third wave of the survey asked children across the various age groups 12 school-related questions
(Box 6). These included three satisfaction, six agreement and three frequency questions, all relating to
school climate, overall satisfaction with life as a student, learning-related student satisfaction, and
classmate-related student satisfaction
Questions asked
Box 6: Questions about school-related variables
Satisfaction questions
How satisfied are you with each of the following things in your life?
 Your life as a student
 Things you have learned at school
 Other children in your class
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at all
satisfied’ and 10 labelled ‘Totally satisfied’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point scale with emoticons.
Agreement questions
 My teachers care about me
 If I have a problem at school my teachers will help me
 If I have a problem at school other children will help me
 There are a lot of arguments between children in my class
 My teachers listen to me and take note of what I say
 At school I have opportunities to make decisions about things that are important to me
 I feel safe at school
Satisfaction with life as a student

We use ‘satisfaction with your life as a student’ as the core indicator of this domain. Figure 6.1
presents the mean scores and percentage of children with low satisfaction (score under five out of 10)
across age groups.
The 8-year-old sample mean scores ranged from 3.09 in Israel to 3.61 in Malaysia. India had the
highest mean of 3.75. Israel (12.01%) and Belgium (Flanders) (8.72%) had the highest percentages of
children with low satisfaction, while India (0.80%) and Indonesia (2.04%) had the lowest. 16 countries
had significant gender differences.
The 10-year-old sample mean scores ranged from 7.43 in Hungary to 9.77 in Albania. India (9.30),
Algeria (9.21), and Romania (9.14) also had mean scores of over nine out of 10. In this age group, three
African countries ranked in the top six. Six countries/regions (Hungary, Israel, Poland, Hong Kong
SAR, Russia, and Belgium [Flanders]) had a mean score below 8. Israel and Hungary had the lowest
mean scores (7.55 and 7.43) as well as the highest percentages of low satisfaction (15.04% and 10.16%,
respectively).Across gender, girls’ mean scores were significantly higher in 22 countries (Table 6.1).
In the 12-year-old sample, Albania (9.55), Bangladesh (9.19), India (9.17), and Sri Lanka (9.02) had
mean scores of over 9 out of ten. Hong Kong SAR (6.85) and Russia (6.85) had the lowest mean scores,
while Vietnam had the highest percentage of low satisfaction (8.40%). Significant gender differences
were found in 13 countries; in 10 countries mean scores for girls were significantly higher, in three
mean scores for boys were significantly higher.
57
Patterns were apparent in countries/regions rankings across the 10- and 12-year-old age groups.
Albania, Algeria, Indonesia, Namibia, Romania, South Africa and Sri Lanka ranked in the top 10 in
both age groups – with Albania ranking highest. Hong Kong SAR, Russia, Taiwan, Vietnam and UK
(Wales) ranked consistently in the bottom 10.
58
Figure 6.1. Satisfaction with life as a student mean and percentage low satisfaction

% low satisfaction
India* (Kolkata) 3.75 0.80%
Albania 9.77 1.29% Albania 9.55 0.52%
Malaysia 3.61 3.11%
India* (Kolkata) 9.30 2.12% Bangladesh* 9.19 0.30%
Algeria 3.60 3.83%
Algeria 9.21 4.11% India* (Kolkata) 9.17 0.72%
Romania 3.57 2.86% Romania 9.14 2.28% Sri Lanka 9.02 0.99%
Brazil (Region) 3.54 2.51% South Africa 8.96 5.40% Nepal* 8.99 0.87%
Indonesia 3.52 2.04% Namibia 8.91 4.43% Indonesia 8.97 1.05%
Bangladesh* 3.52 3.83% Indonesia 8.87 4.23%
Brazil (Region) 8.85 4.40%
Croatia 3.51 2.97%
Greece (Epirus) 8.85 3.91% Algeria 8.92 1.06%
Sri Lanka 8.74 8.95% Namibia (Khomas) 8.59 1.28%
Malta 3.42 6.69%
Bangladesh* 8.74 4.46% Romania 8.51 0.88%
Chile* 3.41 3.67% Malaysia 8.70 5.65% Norway 8.19 1.84%
South Korea 3.35 2.92% Croatia 8.67 4.23% Malta 8.14 1.73%
Finland 3.31 2.63% Switzerland 8.59 4.02% Belgium (Flanders) 8.09 1.69%
Vietnam 3.31 2.30% Chile* 8.55 6.42% Finland 8.09 1.21%
Poland 3.30 3.40% Spain (Catalonia) 8.52 4.24%
Germany 3.28 2.14% Italy (Liguria) 8.48 4.59%
Nepal* 8.48 7.02% Spain (Catalonia) 8.07 1.51%
Taiwan 3.17 6.28% Vietnam 8.06 8.40%
Estonia 3.16 7.51% Estonia 8.46 6.16% Chile* 7.95 3.95%
Italy (Liguria) 3.15 6.32% Norway 8.42 6.04% Italy (Liguria) 7.89 2.63%
Belgium (Flanders) 3.11 8.72% Malta 8.40 7.54% Brazil (Region) 7.87 2.02%
Hungary 3.11 6.55% UK (England) 8.38 5.73% Israel 7.81 2.28%
Israel 3.09 12.01% Finland 8.37 3.49% Croatia 7.72 3.30%
France* 8.34 5.07%
Mean satisfaction (0-4) Taiwan 7.71 3.05%
Taiwan 8.15 7.04%
Germany 8.13 6.37%
Estonia 7.41 4.67%
Vietnam 8.11 9.04% Germany 7.36 4.10%
UK (Wales) 8.08 8.67% Poland 7.24 11.50%
Belgium (Flanders) 7.99 7.66% UK (Wales) 7.20 3.24%
Russia 7.93 9.76% Hungary 7.14 3.95%
Hong Kong SAR 7.91 5.67% Russia 6.85 5.26%
Poland 7.87 10.10% Hong Kong SAR 6.85 4.83%
Israel 7.55 15.04%
Hungary 7.43 10.16% Mean satisfaction (0-10)
59
Children in the 12-year-old age group tended to score lower than the 10-year-olds for satisfaction with
life as a student (Table 6.1.); this decrease was significant in 18 countries. In seven countries, however
(Bangladesh, Belgium [Flanders]), Indonesia, Israel, Malta, Nepal and Sri Lanka), there was an
increase in mean scores for the 12-year-olds, which was significant in Bangladesh and Nepal. In the
10-year-old group girls tended to score significantly higher than boys in most countries.
Table 6.1: Satisfaction with life as a student by gender and age

Albania 9.89 9.65 G>>B 9.77 9.55 10>>12
Algeria 9.47 8.95 G>>B 9.21 8.92 10>12
Bangladesh 8.85 8.61 8.74 9.19 12>>10
Brazil 8.91 8.76 8.85 7.87 10>>12
Chile 8.73 8.38 G>>B 8.55 7.95 10>>12
Croatia 9.03 8.29 G>>B 8.67 7.72 10>>12
Estonia 8.70 8.18 G>>B 8.46 7.41 10>>12
Finland 8.54 8.20 G>>B 8.37 8.09 10>>12
France 8.11 8.55 G>>B
Germany 7.95 8.29 8.13 7.36 10>>12
Greece 9.20 8.46 G>>B
Hong Kong SAR 8.10 7.72 G>>B 7.91 6.85 10>>12
Hungary 7.59 7.29 7.43 7.14
India 9.47 9.12 G>>B 9.30 9.17
Indonesia 9.00 8.75 G>>B 8.87 8.97
Israel 8.04 7.08 G>B 7.55 7.81
Italy 8.70 8.28 G>>B 8.48 7.89 10>>12
Malaysia 8.87 8.48 G>B
Malta 8.87 7.97 G>>B 8.40 8.14
Namibia 9.06 8.71 G>B 8.91 8.59 10>12
Nepal 8.55 8.39 8.48 8.99 12>>10
Norway 8.61 8.21 G>>B 8.42 8.19
Poland 8.29 7.46 G>>B 7.87 7.24 10>>12
Romania 9.20 9.08 9.14 8.51 10>>12
Russia 8.33 7.46 G>>B 7.93 6.85 10>>12
S Africa 9.04 8.86 8.96 8.95
S Korea 8.51 8.43 8.47 8.07 10>>12
Spain 8.78 8.24 G>>B 8.52 8.07 10>>12
Sri Lanka 8.75 8.76 8.74 9.02
Taiwan 8.02 8.28 8.15 7.71 10>>12
UK (England) 8.69 8.05 G>>B
UK (Wales) 8.45 7.71 G>>B 8.08 7.20 10>>12
Vietnam 8.31 7.94 8.11 8.06
Gender differences apply to 10-year-old sample
60
Teachers
The nature of children’s relationships with their teachers has a significant impact on children’s overall
experience and satisfaction with school, as well as their overall subjective well-being. In the second
wave of the survey, we asked children about their satisfaction with teachers, whether they felt that
they were treated fairly and the extent to which they felt listened to by teachers. In the current wave,
we asked children whether they agreed that teachers cared about them; whether teachers were
available to help them if they were experiencing a problem; and whether teachers listened to them
and took note of what they said. For the overall sample, results show a trend of positive experiences
with teachers, with high levels of agreement in the three questions across the three age groups. There
was evidence of a decrease with age amongst those who chose the ‘totally agree’ option.
Across the three items, the between-country analysis for the 10-year-olds presented with a clear
pattern: Albania, Algeria, Malta, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam consistently had a high percentage of ‘totally
agree’ (Table 6.2), while Malaysia and Russia ranked low across all three items. Other countries had
more variation across the different items.
We also include here the question about having opportunities to make decisions at school (Box 6),
which is likely to be linked to teachers and is a key aspect of children’s rights to participation. Total
agreement varied widely, from 19% in Germany to 63% in Sri Lanka.
Classmates
We asked children three questions about their relationships with peers at school: one about their
feelings of satisfaction with children in their class, the other two about whether other children would
help them if they had a problem, and whether there were often arguments between children in the
same class
Figure 6.2 presents an overview of results for the first question. 8-year-old children had high levels of
satisfaction with classmates, with mean scores on a 4-point scale ranging from 3.02 in Taiwan to 3.56
in India. Malaysia and Israel had the highest percentage of low satisfaction, with over 10% and 9%
respectively. There were no significant gender differences in any of the countries.
Greater variation was observed among the 10- and 12-year-olds, with scores measured on a 11-point
scale. 10-year-olds’ mean scores ranged from 7.19 in Malaysia to 9.55 in Albania, with varying low
satisfaction of more than 19% and less than 1%, respectively, in thesecountries. In the 12-year-old
group, Albania again had the highest mean score (9.17), while Wales had the lowest (6.65) with low
satisfaction in over 20% of children. A significant decrease in satisfaction with classmates between the
ages of 10 and 12 was observed in 17 countries.
In the 10-year-old sample, girls scored significantly higher than boys in Bangladesh, Finland,
Indonesia, and Hong Kong SAR, while boys scored significantly higher in Hungary, South Korea and
Norway. In the 12-year-old group, boys scored significantly higher in Brazil, Croatia, Namibia, South
Africa, Romania, South Korea, and UK (Wales), while girls scored higher in Albania and Algeria.
61
Table 6.2: Children totally agreeing with teacher variables – percentage and country ranking
Teachers listen Opportunities to
My teachers care Teachers will help
and take note make decisions
% Rank % Rank % Rank % Rank
Albania 82% 1 80% 2 67% 2 56% 7
Algeria 77% 3 65% 9 57% 7 46% 18
Belgium 46% 25 58% 19 47% 22 41% 25
(Flanders)
Brazil 48% 23 48% 28 35% 32 47% 16
Chile 54% 16 57% 22 55% 11 58% 5
Croatia 46% 26 62% 13 47% 21 49% 14
Estonia 56% 13 67% 6 53% 13 52% 12
Finland 44% 28 60% 16 45% 24 45% 20
France 48% 21 56% 24 49% 16 46% 19
Germany 33% 32 40% 29 19% 33
Greece 59% 18 52% 14 41% 23
Hong Kong SAR 49% 20 55% 25 41% 28 40% 26
Hungary 44% 27 49% 27 48% 19 42% 22
Indonesia 48% 22 48% 29 43% 27 37% 31
Israel 49% 19 44% 26 44% 21
Italy 47% 24 55% 26 38% 30 38% 30
Malaysia 41% 30 47% 30 25% 33 40% 27
Malta 70% 5 70% 4 63% 3 51% 13
Namibia 53% 17 57% 23 45% 25 59% 2
Nepal 58% 11 57% 21 48% 20 48% 15
Norway 62% 8 63% 12 59% 5 41% 24
Poland 56% 14 66% 7 49% 18 53% 11
Romania 70% 4 67% 5 51% 15 56% 8
Russia 34% 31 44% 31 38% 31 33% 32
South Africa 58% 10 60% 15 49% 17 53% 10
South Korea 43% 29 58% 20 46% 23 39% 28
Spain 52% 18 64% 10 58% 6 58% 3
Sri Lanka 80% 2 82% 1 73% 1 63% 1
Switzerland 57% 12 64% 11 60% 4 47% 17
Taiwan 69% 6 71% 3 56% 8 58% 4
UK (England) 61% 9 61% 14 55% 10 56% 9
UK (Wales) 55% 15 60% 17 54% 12 57% 6
Vietnam 65% 7 65% 8 55% 9 39% 29
10 years old
62
Figure 6.2. Satisfaction with other children in class mean and percentage low satisfaction
8 years old % low satisfaction

India* (Kolkata) 3.56 4.55% Albania 9.55 0.86% Albania 9.17 1.90%
Malta 3.53 3.16% Spain (Catalonia) 8.76 3.32% India* (Kolkata) 8.45 5.74%
Spain (Catalonia) 3.47 3.22% Croatia 8.69 4.17% Spain (Catalonia) 8.32 3.73%
Croatia 3.42 3.37%
Greece (Epirus) 8.60 4.80% Nepal* 8.27 7.87%
Norway 8.58 4.79% South Korea 8.26
South Korea 3.41 3.15% South Korea 8.54 5.10%
4.97%
Poland 3.35 3.40% India* (Kolkata) 8.52 8.06%
Norway 8.12 7.48%
Belgium (Flanders) 3.35 5.74% Switzerland 8.48 4.69% Belgium (Flanders) 8.09 4.63%
Chile* 3.33 4.10% Malta 8.37 7.27% Malta 8.05 9.47%
Brazil (Region) 3.29 5.39% Chile* 8.36 7.71% Israel 7.96 10.55%
Indonesia 3.29 4.99% Finland 8.36 4.91% Indonesia 7.95 6.31%
Romania 3.28 4.70% Romania 8.36 5.83% Finland 7.91 6.23%
Algeria 3.26 8.02% Italy (Liguria) 8.34 5.53% Italy (Liguria) 7.82 8.03%
Bangladesh* 3.26 4.72% Estonia 8.27 7.38% Romania 7.80 10.31%
Italy (Liguria) 3.24 3.41% Poland 8.24 8.40%
Hungary 7.78 9.10%
Finland 3.24 3.00% Brazil (Region) 8.21 7.60%
Belgium (Flanders) 8.07 6.84% Taiwan 7.74 9.02%
Malaysia 3.22 10.58% Sri Lanka 7.72 13.55%
Israel 3.22 9.12%
Sri Lanka 8.06 13.43%
Taiwan 8.01 8.94% Croatia 7.65 11.06%
Hungary 3.18 4.83% Bangladesh* 7.64
Indonesia 8.00 9.55% 10.43%
Germany 3.18 3.22% Nepal* 8.00 11.28% Chile* 7.61 12.94%
Vietnam 3.17 6.41% Germany 7.97 8.17% Algeria 7.59 14.93%
Estonia 3.17 7.25% France* 7.92 7.42% Poland 7.47 12.70%
Taiwan 3.02 7.38% Algeria 7.91 14.01% South Africa 7.43 14.11%
Mean (0-4) Russia 7.91 11.23%
Germany 7.39 11.27%
UK (Wales) 7.86 9.11% Vietnam 7.25 13.79%
UK (England) 7.78 9.65% Estonia 7.24 14.92%
Israel 7.76 13.28% Hong Kong 7.16 10.92%
Bangladesh* 7.69 11.66% Russia 6.99 18.72%
Hungary 7.67 9.14% Namibia (Khomas) 6.98 16.21%
South Africa 7.53 14.88% Brazil (Region) 6.96 18.75%
Namibia (Khomas) 7.47 12.57% UK (Wales) 6.65 20.54%
Vietnam 7.44 12.57%
Malaysia 7.19 19.19% Mean (0-10)
Mean (0-10)
63
Similarly, a high level of agreement for ‘other children will help me’ was observed in the overall
samples and across age groups. There was evidence of a decrease with age in the ‘totally agree’
option.
Across individual countries in the 10-year-old sample, Algeria, Namibia, Malaysia, South
Africa, and Brazil presented with the highest percentages of ‘not agree’, while Sri Lanka,
Taiwan, Spain, Albania, and Norway presented with the highest percentages for ‘totally agree’.
There was substantial variation in responses to this item; for example Algeria, Namibia,
Malaysia, South Africa, and Brazil scored over 20% for the combined options of ‘do not agree’
and ‘agree a little’, with 30.01% of the Malaysian sample selecting these options. Other countries
had higher levels of agreement, with Spain, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan presenting with more than
80% for the combined options of ‘totally agree’ and ‘agree a lot’. Figure 6.3 depicts the
percentage of ‘totally agree’ by gender across countries. In 21 countries a higher percentage of
girls totally agreed that children would help, while in 10 countries a higher percentage of boys
totally agreed. Sri Lanka, Poland and Estonia presented with the highest differences between
boys and girls.
64
Figure 6.3. Children totally agreeing ‘other children will help me’ by gender
10 years old
65
Satisfaction with things learned at school

This question asked participants to consider their satisfaction with things they learned at school.
We designed the question to tap into an aspect of school life directly related to their experience
of school as a place of learning and as such, aligned the question to the learning-related domain
of school life.
Figure 6.4 summarises mean scores and percentage of low satisfaction by country and across
age. In the 8-year-old group most were quite satisfied with this aspect of their lives. Mean
satisfaction scores (0-4 scale) ranged from 3.13 in Israel to 3.78 in India. We found significant
gender differences in 13 countries, with girls scoring significantly higher than boys in 12
countries, and boys scoring significantly higher in India.
The 10-year-olds' mean scores (0-10 scale) ranged from 7.64 in Israel to 9.83 in Albania. Israel
also had the highest percentage of children with low satisfaction. In 18 countries girls scored
significantly higher than boys, while boys scored significantly higher in Hong Kong SAR.
The 12-year-olds' mean scores ranged from 7.27 in Hong Kong SAR to 9.71 in Albania. India
had the lowest percentage of low satisfaction (1%), and Germany and UK (Wales) had the
highest (both over 11%). Girls scored significantly higher than boys in 10 countries, while boys
scored significantly higher in five.
There were significant age differences between the 10- and 12-year-old children in 19 countries.
In 18 countries, satisfaction with learning was significantly lower among 12-year-olds, while in
Nepal they scored significantly higher than 10-year-olds. There does not seem to be an obvious
geographical pattern in country ranking, with the exception of the three African countries
maintaining position in the top half. However, across the three age groups there was some
consistency in country ranking. Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, South Korea,
Taiwan, and Vietnam all ranked in the bottom half across the three age groups, with Germany
ranking in the bottom four and Hungary in the bottom six. Israel ranked lowest for both the 8-
and 10-year-old samples, and also presented with the highest percentage of low satisfaction in
both age groups. Of those with higher ranking, Algeria, Brazil, Norway, Romania, and Spain
were positioned in the top half across the three age groups. Across the 10- and 12-year-old
samples, Albania ranked highest and also had the lowest percentage of participants with low
satisfaction.
66
Figure 6.4. Satisfaction with things learned at school mean and percentage low satisfaction

% low satisfaction % low satisfaction % low satisfaction
Albania 9.83 0.77% Albania 9.71 1.12%
India* (Kolkata) 3.78 0.60% Algeria 9.55 1.63% India* (Kolkata) 9.31 1.02%
Romania 9.47 1.55% South Africa 9.26 2.10%
Croatia 3.72 0.90% Greece (Epirus) 9.42 1.83% Algeria 9.16 3.42%
Brazil (Region) 3.72 0.80% India* (Kolkata) 9.38 2.22% Bangladesh* 9.14 2.48%
Spain (Catalonia) 3.71 0.91% Brazil (Region) 9.28 2.31% Nepal* 9.13 1.16%
Croatia 9.25 1.71% Namibia (Northern) 9.03 3.02%
Romania 3.69 0.85% Namibia (Northern) 9.22 2.75% Sri Lanka 8.99 5.20%
Algeria 3.68 0.86% South Africa 9.20 3.16% Romania 8.95 2.56%
Bangladesh* 3.63 1.15% Chile* 9.17 2.65% Malta 8.66 4.01%
Malta 3.62 2.19% Italy (Liguria) 9.11 1.87%
Brazil (Region) 8.58 2.68%
Poland 3.60 0.96% Bangladesh* 9.06 2.77% Spain (Catalonia) 8.58 2.14%
Malta 8.97 3.54% Chile* 8.58 5.45%
Chile* 3.58 1.22%
France* 8.96 2.46% Indonesia 8.54 2.84%
Malaysia 3.56 1.97% Belgium (Flemish) 8.48 2.64%
Sri Lanka 8.95 7.04%
Italy (Liguria) 3.54 1.07% Norway 8.93 1.64% Norway 8.42 3.92%
Finland 3.49 1.56% Malaysia 8.93 4.04% Italy (Liguria) 8.38 3.83%
Switzerland 8.88 2.95% Finland 8.34 3.36%
South Korea 3.46 1.56% UK (England) 8.84 3.64% Vietnam 8.33 10.01%
Hungary 3.44 1.69% Finland 8.79 2.74% Croatia 8.14 6.28%
Vietnam 3.44 0.98% Estonia 8.79 4.28% Taiwan 7.98 6.16%
Nepal* 8.72 8.02% Israel 7.92 8.86%
Taiwan 3.43 1.47% Poland 8.70 3.99%
Estonia 3.41 2.40% South Korea 7.90 5.53%
UK (Wales) 8.66 4.60%
Taiwan 8.65 5.02% Estonia 7.83 8.83%
Germany 3.36 1.40%
South Korea 8.62 2.91% Poland 7.78 8.71%
Indonesia 3.35 1.65% Hungary 7.64 7.59%
Indonesia 8.57 5.96%
Belgium (Flemish) 3.28 3.52% Russia 8.57 5.46% Russia 7.62 9.57%
Israel 3.13 4.16% Belgium (Flemish) 8.55 5.25% UK (Wales) 7.39 11.54%
Vietnam 8.46 7.90% Germany 7.28 11.40%
Mean satisfaction (0-4) Hong Kong 8.44 3.70% Hong Kong 7.27 7.32%
Hungary 8.26 5.20%
Germany 8.09 6.65%
Israel 7.64 13.61%
67
Safety
Extensive evidence points to a significant relation between children’s perceptions and experiences of
safety at school, and their subjective well-being.
Table 6.3 provides a summarised account of the percentage of participants who selected the ‘totally
agree’ option across gender, age, and country. Girls tended to feel slightly safer at school than boys in
most countries, with the largest gap in Nepal. We also found differences across age. Most countries
presented with a decreasing percentage of 'totally agree' to feeling safe with the increase in age
between 8 to 12 years. There were differences of more than 20 percentage points between 8 and 12
years of age in Brazil, Croatia, Malaysia, and Poland, and between 10 to 12 years for UK (Wales).
Finally, we found an increase between 8 and 10 years in Algeria, and 10 to 12 years in Nepal (we note
a similar result for Nepal in wave 2 of the survey).
68
Table 6.3: Children agreeing they 'feel safe at school' – percentage by age
Country Boys Girls 8yo 10yo 12yo Total
Albania 75% 82% 83% 74% 78%
Algeria 69% 70% 70% 76% 63% 70%
Belgium
(Flanders) 64% 61% 67% 60% 61% 63%
Brazil 56% 55% 68% 57% 40% 55%
Chile 62% 66% 72% 67% 54% 64%
Croatia 62% 63% 75% 65% 48% 62%
Estonia 55% 59% 63% 64% 44% 57%
Finland 58% 63% 67% 61% 54% 61%
France 59% 61% 60% 60%
Germany 47% 49% 52% 43% 36% 42%
Greece 73% 73% 73% 73%
Hong Kong SAR 39% 44% 53% 31% 41%
Hungary 58% 58% 67% 54% 53% 58%
India
Indonesia 51% 51% 46% 55% 51% 51%
Israel 49% 56% 59% 50% 47% 52%
Italy 51% 53% 59% 54% 44% 52%
Malaysia 59% 66% 75% 51% 63%
Malta 65% 65% 76% 63% 60% 65%
Namibia 53% 50% 56% 47% 51%
Nepal 64% 72% 64% 72% 68%
Norway 69% 67% 71% 61% 68%
Poland 57% 62% 71% 61% 48% 59%
Romania 53% 55% 60% 57% 45% 54%
Russia 43% 48% 56% 35% 46%
S Africa 59% 64% 63% 60% 62%
S Korea 43% 37% 50% 42% 29% 40%
Spain 64% 68% 71% 60% 66%
Sri Lanka 83% 78% 80% 82% 81%
Switzerland 61% 61% 60% 60%
Taiwan 54% 57% 54% 60% 52% 55%
UK (England) 67% 66% 66% 66%
UK (Wales) 52% 51% 68% 43% 52%
Vietnam 56% 61% 65% 59% 52% 58%
10 years old
Figure 6.6 provides a comparison of the item ‘I feel safe at school’ between countries for the 10-year-
old sample. Malaysia (11.86%), Namibia (11.66%), Israel (9.12%), South Africa (6.63%), and Algeria
(5.66%) had the highest percentages of ‘not agree’; while Spain (1.09%), Albania (1.31%), Norway
(1.70%), Sri Lanka (1.78%), and Greece (1.98%) had the lowest percentages. Of those selecting the
option ‘totally agree’, Albania (82.55%) and Sri Lanka (80.78) presented with the highest percentages;
in four other countries more than 70% selected this option. The lowest percentages for this response
were in South Korea (41.74 %) and Germany (43.47%).
69
Figure 6.6. Children feeling safe at school by country
Malaysia
Namibia (Khomas)
Israel
South Africa
Algeria
Russia (Tyumen)
Germany
Romania
Malta
Brazil (Region)
Nepal*
Poland
Hong Kong SAR
Belgium (Flanders)
Estonia
UK (Wales)
France*
Hungary
Chile*
Vietnam
Italy (Liguria)
UK (England)
Finland
Croatia
Taiwan
Switzerland
South Korea
Indonesia
Greece (Epirus)
Sri Lanka
Norway
Albania
Spain (Catalonia)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I do not agree Agree a little bit Agree somewhat Agree a lot Totally agree
10 years old
70
Chapter 7
Neighbourhoods
Overview
Beyond family and school, the local neighbourhood is a third important context that shapes children’s
quality of life. Unsafe environments have a negative impact on children’s well-being,while and
neighbourhoods that are friendly and have adequate facilities are integral for a happy childhood.
Early studies focusing on children’s subjective well-being at the community level, show that
neighbourhood characteristics and safety are the key factors influencing well-being (Coulton and
Korbin 2007; McDonell 2007; Jutras and Lepage, 2006). More recent studies have demonstrated the
links between children’s subjective well-being and neighbourhood support (Oberle, Schonerte-Reichel
& Zumbo, 2011 in Canada), neighbourhood social capital (Aminzadeh et al. 2013 in New Zealand)
and neighbourhood safety (Ben-Arieh and Shimon, 2014 in Israel; Adams & Savahl, 2016 in South
Africa).
Using data from the first (pilot) wave survey, Lee and Yoo (2015) found that neighbourhood factors
explained variations in children’s life satisfaction, even after taking account of demographics and
factors related to family and school. The second wave of the survey (Rees, 2017) showed consistently
high ratings for neighbourhood aspects in Norway, and a generally positive picture in Finland and
Israel as well. The countries that were towards the bottom ranking were South Korea, Germany and
South Africa. It was found that girls tended to feel less safe than boys in their local area in six out of 18
countries. There were substantial age variations, with children tending to feel less satisfied with their
local area as they got older (between 8 and 12 years old). An analysis of urban-rural variations in four
countries (Rees et al., 2017) found different patterns across countries. For example, children felt safer
in rural areas in two countries and safer in urban areas in one, with no significant difference in the
fourth.
Questions asked
In this survey, children were asked about satisfaction with their neighbourhoods and how much they
agree with statements about their local areas. The questions are shown in Box 7.
71
Box 7: Questions about the area where you live

How satisfied are you with the area where you live?
10- and 12-year-olds responded on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at all satisfied’
and 10 labelled ‘Totally satisfied’. 8-year-olds responded on a 5-point scale with emoticons
Agreement questions
How much do you agree with each of these sentences about your local area?
 I feel safe when I walk around in the area I live in
 In my area there are enough places to play and have a good time
 If I have a problem, there are people in my local area who will help me
 Adults in my local area are kind to children
 Adults in my area listen to children and take them seriously
We use the question about satisfaction ‘with the area you live’ as the key measure for this domain.
Figure 7.1 summarizes the responses of children to this question by country and age group.
The findings in Figure 7.1 show that children's overall satisfaction levels were mostly high. In the 10-
year-old age group, mean satisfaction levels ranged from 7.5 in Sri Lanka to 9.2 in Switzerland. The
proportion of children who were not satisfied with their area (score of less than five on the 10-point
scale) ranged from approximately 2% in Switzerland to more than 20% in Sri Lanka.
Despite high level of overall satisfaction, there was an apparent geographical pattern. The countries
with satisfaction scores of 9.0 and higher were all in Europe, namekt: Switzerland, France, Estonia,
Greece, and Romania. One notable exception was Germany, which had one of the lowest levels of
satisfaction with the neighbourhood in all three age groups. In the 10-year-old survey, Sri Lanka and
Germany had the lowest mean satisfaction scores, below 8.0 out of 10. The geographical patterns in
the other two age groups were similar. One notable exception was Israel, which had the highest
satisfaction rating in the 12-year-olds, but ranked in the middle for the younger two age groups.
A strong age pattern was found in most countries, with children aged 12 years significantly less
satisfied with their neighbourhood than children aged 10 years. There were no countries where
satisfaction was significantly higher in the older age group.
There were few significant gender variations for this indicator (Table 7.1); with girls having higher
mean satisfaction in seven countries.
72
Figure 7.1: Satisfaction with ‘area where you live’ mean and percentage low satisfaction

% low satisfaction Switzerland 9.2 2%
Romania 3.6 2% France 9.1 3% Israel 8.9 4%
Estonia 3.6 3% Estonia 9.1 3% Romania 8.9 3%
Spain 3.6 4% Greece 9.1 3% Finland 8.7 3%
Poland 3.6 3% Romania 9.0 4% Hungary 8.7 4%
Malta 3.6 5% Malaysia 8.9 5% Nepal 8.6 3%
Hungary 3.5 3%
Hungary 8.9 3% Norway 8.6 5%
Norway 8.9 3%
Finland 3.5 3% Malta 8.6 6%
Finland 8.9 4%
Israel 3.5 5% Albania 8.9 6%
Belgium 8.5 3%
India 3.5 6% Malta 8.8 6% Albania 8.5 7%
Croatia 3.5 4% Poland 8.8 5% Estonia 8.5 5%
Brazil 3.5 6% Russia 8.8 4% Spain 8.5 5%
Algeria 3.5 7% Croatia 8.8 5% Indonesia 8.5 4%
S Korea 3.5 3% Spain 8.7 5% Italy 8.4 5%
Bangladesh 3.5 4% Israel 8.7 8% Algeria 8.3 11%
Vietnam 3.5 3% Italy 8.7 5% Croatia 8.3 9%
Malaysia 3.5 7% Belgium 8.7 5% India 8.3 8%
Chile 3.5 6% England 8.6 6% Chile 8.2 9%
Belgium 3.4 6% Indonesia 8.6 6% Poland 8.2 8%
Indonesia 3.4 4% Bangladesh 8.6 4% S Korea 8.1 5%
Italy 3.4 5% Chile 8.6 8%
Wales 8.5 8%
Sri Lanka 8.1 15%
Taiwan 3.3 4% Russia 8.0 9%
Germany 3.3 5% S Korea 8.5 5%
Nepal 8.4 7% Taiwan 8.0 8%
Mean satisfaction (0-4) S Africa 8.4 10% Wales 8.0 11%
India 8.4 9% Bangladesh 8.0 8%
Taiwan 8.3 7% Vietnam 7.8 12%
Vietnam 8.2 14% S Africa 7.7 13%
Hong Kong 8.1 6% Hong Kong 7.6 7%
Brazil 8.1 8% Brazil 7.4 12%
Algeria 8.1 14% Namibia 7.3 16%
Namibia 8.0 11% Germany 7.3 16%
Germany 7.7 14%
Sri Lanka 7.5 22% Mean satisfaction (0-10)
73
Table 7.1: Satisfaction with local area by gender and age

Albania 8.85 8.85 8.85 8.55 10>>12
Algeria 8.28 7.89 8.10 8.34
Bangladesh 8.71 8.52 8.62 7.96 10>>12
Brazil 8.00 8.26 8.11 7.36
Chile 8.60 8.66 8.62 8.22 10>12
Croatia 8.95 8.55 G>>B 8.76 8.27 10>>12
Estonia 9.17 9.01 9.10 8.54 10>>12
Finland 9.01 8.78 G>B 8.90 8.67 10>>12
France 9.08 9.13
Germany 7.65 7.26 10>>12
Greece 9.12 9.05
Hong Kong SAR 8.26 8.03 8.14 7.61 10>>12
Hungary 8.90 8.90 8.91 8.65 10>12
India 8.49 8.27 8.38 8.25
Indonesia 8.75 8.51 G>>B 8.63 8.52 10>12
Israel 8.93 8.53 8.72 8.88
Italy 8.80 8.58 8.69 8.42 10>12
Malaysia 9.04 8.82
Malta 8.89 8.75 8.83 8.60
Namibia 8.07 7.84 7.97 7.27 10>>12
Nepal 8.57 8.27 G>B 8.43 8.64
Norway 8.87 8.94 8.91 8.62 10>12
Poland 8.87 8.71 8.79 8.20 10>>12
Romania 8.93 9.03 8.98 8.86
Russia 8.97 8.51 G>>B 8.76 8.00 10>>12
S Africa 8.37 8.40 8.39 7.68 10>>12
S Korea 8.38 8.53 8.45 8.15 10>>12
Spain 8.91 8.55 G>>B 8.74 8.54 10>12
Sri Lanka 7.85 7.25 7.50 8.05
Taiwan 8.21 8.35 8.28 7.99 10>12
UK (Wales) 8.72 8.31 G>B 8.51 7.97 10>12
Vietnam 8.23 8.08 8.16 7.76
Perception of neighbourhoods
We used six agreement questions to measure children’s perceptions of their neighbourhoods. These
questions were optional, and some were asked in at least one age group in all countries except
Bangladesh and Malaysia. Data for the question ‘In my local area, I have opportunities to participate
in decisions about things that are important to children’, were missing (well above 10%) in many
countries. The feedback from the national research teams suggest that this concept of participation in
74
local decision-making is unfamiliar to children in many countries. Due to the levels of missing data,
responses to this question are not presented here.
For the remaining five questions, Table 7.2 shows the percentage of children in the 10-year-old survey
who totally agreed.
 The highest average level of agreement was for 'places to play'. Twice as many children (70%)
totally agreed there were enough places to play in their neighbourhood in Estonia, compared
to South Korea (34%).
 The lowest average level of agreement was for 'adults listening'; in most countries only a
minority of children totally agreed. Sri Lanka ranked highest for this question (57%), and
South Korea lowest (20%).
 Estonia ranked highest (70%) for feeling safe, while in six countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Italy,
Namibia, Russia, and South Korea) less than two in five children totally agreed that they felt
safe in their neighbourhood.
 Overall, Switzerland and Chile stand out as ranking consistently high across this set of
questions; while Sri Lanka ranks high for all questions, except safety.
 Five countries/regions – Brazil, Hong Kong SAR, Italy, South Korea, and Wales, ranked in the
bottom half for all five questions.
There were relatively few significant gender differences observed in the 10-year-old group for the first
four questions. There was, however, a pattern of girls feeling less safe than boys in their
neighbourhood, which was significant in 11countries.
A fairly consistent pattern, with few exceptions, of decreasing agreement across age groups for all
questions was found. Figure 7.3 provides an illustration of age group patterns for the question about
places to play in the local area. In 12 out of 17 countries there was a significant decrease in agreement
with age for children aged 8 and 10 years. In 20 out of 28 countries there was a significant age-related
decrease in agreement for children aged 10 and 12 years.
75
Table 7.2: Children totally agreeing with questions about neighbourhood – percentage and country
ranking
Places to play Adults support Adults kind Adults listen Safe area
% rank % rank % rank % rank % rank
Albania 60% 10 57% 3 62% 3 41% 11 55% 11
Algeria 55% 19 48% 10 56% 10 36% 17 58% 8
Belgium
57% 12 45% 15 59% 7 36% 15 52% 16
(Flanders)
Brazil 41% 30 35% 23 37% 20 25% 20 33% 32
Chile 67% 3 57% 4 60% 6 52% 2 59% 7
Croatia 65% 5 49% 9 64% 1 53% 13
Estonia 70% 1 47% 12 70% 1
Finland 57% 13 62% 4 64% 2
France 45% 26 50% 8 55% 10
Germany 53% 21 37% 21 44% 18 42% 26
Greece 60% 9 46% 13 48% 22
Hong Kong SAR 44% 28 25% 24 31% 22 29% 18 46% 24
Hungary 65% 6 46% 14 51% 15 43% 8 55% 9
India 55% 18 59% 6
Indonesia 45% 27 41% 17 52% 13 43% 9 36% 31
Israel 61% 8 60% 5
Italy 42% 29 41% 18 42% 19 27% 19 38% 29
Malta 40% 31 44% 16 58% 8 46% 5 51% 18
Namibia 56% 17 41% 12 36% 30
Nepal 47% 25 52% 5 47% 17 44% 7 53% 14
Norway 53% 20 62% 4
Poland 63% 7 48% 20
Romania 36% 32 48% 21
Russia 56% 14 39% 28
S Africa 50% 24 45% 6 42% 27
S Korea 34% 33 36% 22 34% 21 20% 21 23% 33
Spain 59% 11 47% 11 55% 11 36% 16 55% 12
Sri Lanka 66% 4 59% 1 63% 2 57% 1 52% 17
Switzerland 70% 2 57% 2 61% 5 50% 4 64% 3
Taiwan 56% 15 51% 6 56% 9 51% 3 52% 15
UK (England) 52% 22 41% 19 53% 12 43% 10 48% 23
UK (Wales) 50% 23 41% 20 50% 16 39% 14 46% 25
Vietnam 56% 16 51% 7 52% 14 40% 13 49% 19
Average 54% 46% 52% 40% 50%
10 years old
76
Figure 7.2: Children feeling safe in neighbourhood by gender
Boy Girl
S Korea
Chile
Taiwan
France
Hungary
Sri Lanka
Brazil
Indonesia
S Africa
Algeria
Greece
Belgium (Flanders)
Germany
Romania
Finland
Poland
Croatia
Russia
Malta
Switzerland
Estonia
Spain
Wales
Albania
Namibia
Norway
Nepal
Israel
England
Hong Kong SAR
Italy
Vietnam
India
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

% totally agreeing that they feel safe in their neighbourhood
10 years old
Countries are sorted in descending order of the gap between boys and girls
77
Figure 7.3: Children totally agreeing there are enough places to play in the neighbourhood by age
78
Chapter 8
Overview of domains of well-being
Building on the discussion of children’s views of the family, friends, school, and neighbourhood in
the last four chapters, this chapter looks across the full range of aspects of children’s lives covered in
the survey. We relate to 15 questions, all using a satisfaction scale from zero to 10, as shown in Box 8.
The abbreviated terms used in this chapter to discuss the questions are shown in blue and brackets.
We focus on the 10-year-olds' survey as it covers all 35 countries/regions.
Box 8: 15 questions about children’s satisfaction with different aspects of their lives
How satisfied are you with
 The people you live with [family]
 The home you live in [home]
 Your friends [friends]
 Your life as a student [school life]
 The things you have learned at school [learning]
 The other children in your class [classmates]
 The area where you live [neighbourhood]
 All the things you have [possessions]
 How you use your time [time use]
 Your health [health]
 How safe you feel [safety]
 The freedom you have [freedom]
 The way you look [appearance]
 How you are listened to by adults in general [listened to]
 What may happen later in your life [future]
Responses were on a unipolar 11-point scale from 0-10, with 0 labelled ‘Not at all satisfied’ and 10 labelled
‘Totally satisfied’.
All questions were asked in all countries.
Our objective in this chapter is to identify the most and least positive aspects of life for children in
each country. It is possible to gain initial insights by comparing mean scores for each aspect across
countries; these are shown in Table 8.1. The table also highlights a potential challenge with this
approach. In countries like Albania, Croatia, and Greece, they tend to have much higher mean scores
across all aspects of life than other countries/regions, such as Hong Kong SAR, Nepal, and Vietnam
(summarised in the second column). This may reflect underlying differences in children’s subjective
experience in these countries. On the other hand, as discussed in chapter 1, these patterns may be
attributable to linguistic issues, such as how a term like ‘satisfaction’ is translated into, and
79
understood in, different languages. It may also be due to cultural differences in responding to
subjective questions.
80
Table 8.1: Satisfaction with 15 aspects of life mean scores

Class- Neighb’ Time Appear- Listened
Mean Family House Things Friends Student Learning mates hood use Health ance Safety Freedom to Future
Albania 9.57 9.80 9.77 9.69 9.63 9.77 9.83 9.55 8.85 9.71 9.75 9.57 9.80 9.55 9.21 9.11
Algeria 8.84 9.35 8.97 8.90 8.71 9.21 9.55 7.91 8.10 8.60 9.33 8.87 9.19 8.28 8.84 8.77
Bangladesh 8.38 8.80 8.46 8.56 8.35 8.74 9.06 7.69 8.62 8.54 8.24 8.18 8.39 8.07 8.25 7.73
Belgium
(Flanders) 8.68 8.89 9.15 9.34 8.58 7.99 8.55 8.07 8.68 8.89 9.02 8.49 8.93 8.77 8.36 8.57
Brazil 8.69 9.04 9.02 8.97 8.74 8.85 9.28 8.21 8.11 8.75 9.28 8.54 8.49 8.45 8.47 8.15
Chile 8.96 9.29 9.20 9.36 8.87 8.55 9.17 8.36 8.62 8.87 9.20 8.99 9.19 8.97 8.79 8.94
Croatia 9.20 9.58 9.55 9.66 9.21 8.67 9.25 8.69 8.76 9.29 9.65 8.99 9.44 9.44 8.94 8.87
Estonia 8.94 9.29 9.32 9.40 8.87 8.46 8.79 8.27 9.10 8.93 9.27 8.85 9.28 8.92 8.75 8.63
Finland 8.91 9.20 9.30 9.25 8.97 8.37 8.79 8.36 8.90 9.00 9.23 8.54 9.17 9.01 8.94 8.60
France 8.72 8.86 9.00 8.98 8.99 8.34 8.96 7.92 9.10 8.69 9.28 8.37 8.74 8.61 8.19 8.77
Germany 8.62 8.72 8.98 9.13 8.70 8.12 8.09 7.97 7.65 8.60 9.12 8.62 9.07 9.09 8.69 8.80
Greece 9.27 9.49 9.49 9.48 9.02 8.85 9.42 8.60 9.09 9.30 9.72 9.43 9.57 9.47 9.03 9.11
Hong Kong SAR 8.21 8.48 8.31 8.72 8.56 7.91 8.44 7.88 8.14 7.66 8.82 7.71 8.90 8.02 7.68 7.88
Hungary 8.86 9.43 9.44 9.54 8.87 7.43 8.26 7.67 8.91 8.84 9.30 8.63 9.35 8.88 9.16 9.13
India 8.88 9.49 9.06 9.18 8.83 9.30 9.38 8.52 8.38 9.03 8.84 8.88 9.07 8.30 8.24 8.64
Indonesia 8.43 8.44 8.23 8.66 8.38 8.87 8.57 8.00 8.63 8.16 8.72 8.26 8.47 8.27 7.97 8.66
Israel 8.58 9.27 9.10 9.16 8.37 7.55 7.64 7.76 8.72 8.61 9.09 8.74 8.97 8.90 8.50 8.24
Italy 8.89 9.34 9.09 9.44 8.87 8.48 9.11 8.34 8.69 8.94 9.41 8.73 9.03 8.93 8.54 8.43
Malaysia 8.57 9.23 9.26 9.22 8.00 8.70 8.93 7.19 8.94 8.73 8.92 8.90 8.70 7.72 7.99 8.16
Malta 8.91 9.38 9.09 9.46 9.02 8.40 8.97 8.37 8.83 9.03 9.14 9.04 9.29 8.48 8.81 8.37
Namibia 8.55 8.55 8.64 8.91 8.36 8.91 9.22 7.47 7.97 8.45 9.08 8.98 8.78 8.41 8.41 8.14
Nepal 8.13 8.59 8.36 8.25 8.23 8.48 8.72 8.00 8.43 8.31 8.25 7.44 8.39 7.61 7.61 7.35
Norway 8.99 9.27 9.21 9.38 8.99 8.42 8.93 8.58 8.90 8.64 9.23 8.79 9.39 9.20 8.96 8.94
Poland 8.88 9.22 9.30 9.46 8.49 7.87 8.70 8.24 8.79 9.09 9.29 8.95 9.27 9.02 8.64 8.94
Romania 9.23 9.48 9.47 9.52 9.00 9.14 9.47 8.36 8.98 9.33 9.64 9.21 9.48 9.35 9.08 8.99
Russia 8.67 9.08 9.03 9.21 8.78 7.93 8.57 7.91 8.76 8.91 9.03 8.65 8.79 8.64 8.63 8.19
S Africa 8.61 8.79 8.78 8.94 8.57 8.96 9.20 7.53 8.39 8.63 8.88 8.70 8.96 8.37 8.42 8.04
S Korea 8.47 9.09 8.99 8.73 8.62 8.47 8.62 8.54 8.45 8.18 8.72 7.42 8.66 8.35 8.03 8.25
Spain 9.05 9.32 9.18 9.55 9.00 8.52 9.16 8.76 8.74 8.97 9.45 9.09 9.29 8.91 8.91 8.94
Sri Lanka 8.35 8.87 8.51 8.08 7.59 8.74 8.95 8.06 7.50 8.48 8.55 8.32 8.38 8.38 8.51 8.30
Switzerland 9.04 9.27 9.30 9.46 9.09 8.59 8.88 8.48 9.23 9.01 9.38 8.75 9.22 9.15 8.87 8.88
Taiwan 8.48 8.89 8.97 8.88 8.55 8.15 8.65 8.01 8.28 8.15 8.83 8.07 8.98 8.54 8.24 8.09
UK (England) 8.77 9.21 9.20 9.42 8.70 8.38 8.84 7.78 8.63 8.90 9.05 8.13 9.12 8.87 8.82 8.53
UK (Wales) 8.73 9.15 9.22 9.38 8.75 8.09 8.67 7.87 8.51 8.96 9.07 8.04 9.09 8.95 8.68 8.51
Vietnam 7.91 7.93 8.40 8.15 7.14 8.11 8.46 7.44 8.16 7.92 8.24 7.76 7.94 7.58 8.21 7.20
10 years old. Mean scores in column 2 are the average across 15 aspects in each country
81
In the next three tables we present three alternative ways of looking at this data, which can provide
insights that take account of some of the possible linguistic and cultural response factors.
Table 8.2 shows country ranking for each aspect of life. For example, Albania is ranked 1st and has the
highest score for satisfaction with family, while Vietnam has the lowest score and is ranked 35th. As
noted above, it is evident that some countries consistently have high rankings, while others have
consistently low rankings. There were also countries with a more mixed picture. For example,
Hungary ranked first for satisfaction with the future but 35th (bottom) for satisfaction with student life.
While rankings can be an over-simplified approach (because two countries ranked next to one another
can be very close together or much further apart), this approach does help to provide some simpler
insights that are not immediately apparent from the detail of Table 8.1.
Table 8.3 presents a different view. Here the rankings are within-countries. For example, the highest
level of satisfaction in Albania is for learning (1 st) and the lowest is for the neighbourhood (15th, as
there are 15 aspects of life in total). This table illustrates that there isconsistency in terms of satisfaction
with some aspects of life within countries than across the large majority of countries. For example, the
aspects related to family, possessions, and home are highly ranked in almost all countries, and those
relating to health and safety in most. On the other hand, classmates is an aspect that children seem to
be relative dissatisfied with across almost all countries.
Table 8.4 draws these different ways of viewing the patterns into a single picture. It uses an approach
that we implemented in the first report on the last wave of the survey, where we calculated relative
scores. These serve to highlight aspects of life with which children in each country are relatively
satisfied or dissatisfied, taking into account the overall pattern of scores across all countries and
aspects. The calculation is as follows:
Figure 8.1: Calculation of relative scores

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑗
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 100 ∗ (1 − )
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑖 × (𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑗 ÷ 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛)
Where:
Meanij = Actual mean satisfaction score for aspect i in country j

Meani = Pooled mean satisfaction score for aspect i across all countries
Meanj = Mean satisfaction score for all aspects within country j
Grand mean = Mean of all Meanij
These scores average to one, both across countries within each aspect, and within each country across
aspects. A score above 1 indicates an aspect children evaluate relatively positively in a particular
country, and a score below 1 indicates an aspect children evaluate relatively negatively. The
calculation eliminates some of the concerns about linguistic and response biases. Scores offer a useful
guide to policymakers seeking to understand which might be the key aspects for improvement in their
country. For example, a policymaker in Nepal looking only at national figures, might conclude
satisfaction with classmates is a key area of concern, as mean satisfaction is lower for this aspect (Table
8.3). But satisfaction with classmates is relatively low in most countries, thus the relative score of 1.06
means that Nepal is in fact faring relatively well on this aspect. Policymakers might, more usefully,
focus attention on appearance, freedom, and the future, where relative scores are lowest. There are
countries (for example, Italy) where it is difficult to discern clear patterns through this approach. For
most countries, however, Table 8.4 can provide insight into areas of relative strengths and weaknesses,
and may be useful in terms of identifying priorities for improving children’s well-being.
82
Table 8.2: Between-country mean satisfaction ranking for 15 aspects of life

Family House Things Friends Student Learning mates hood use Health ance Safety Freedom to Future
Albania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Algeria 8 26 27 19 3 2 24 32 26 8 12 13 29 10 12
Bangladesh 28 31 32 31 10 13 30 21 27 34 28 33 31 26 33
Belgium (Flanders) 24 16 16 23 30 30 17 18 16 24 24 23 18 25 18
Brazil 23 22 24 18 8 6 16 31 19 11 23 30 23 22 28
Chile 11 13 15 14 15 10 10 22 17 16 6 12 10 13 6
Croatia 2 2 2 2 13 7 3 14 4 3 7 4 3 7 10
Estonia 12 6 12 11 20 22 14 3 13 13 13 9 13 14 16
Finland 19 8 17 10 24 21 11 9 9 15 22 14 9 6 17
France 27 23 23 8 25 15 23 2 21 12 25 27 20 30 13
Germany 30 25 22 21 27 34 22 34 25 18 21 17 7 15 11
Greece 3 3 6 5 9 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 3
Hong Kong SAR 33 34 30 25 32 32 26 30 35 29 33 24 32 34 32
Hungary 6 5 4 13 35 33 31 7 18 9 20 6 16 2 1
India 4 20 20 15 2 5 7 27 6 27 11 18 28 27 15
Indonesia 34 35 31 28 7 28 20 20 32 30 27 31 30 33 14
Israel 13 17 21 29 34 35 29 16 24 19 16 21 15 21 25
Italy 9 19 10 12 17 12 13 17 12 6 17 19 12 19 21
Malaysia 16 10 18 33 12 18 35 6 20 25 10 28 33 32 27
Malta 7 18 8 4 22 14 9 11 7 17 5 8 22 12 22
Namibia 32 29 26 30 6 8 33 33 29 20 8 26 24 24 29
Nepal 31 33 33 32 18 23 21 25 30 33 34 32 34 35 34
Norway 15 12 13 9 21 17 5 8 22 14 14 5 5 5 7
Poland 17 7 7 27 33 24 15 12 5 10 9 10 8 17 8
Romania 5 4 5 7 4 3 12 5 2 4 3 3 4 3 4
Russia 22 21 19 16 31 29 25 13 14 23 19 25 19 18 26
S Africa 29 28 25 24 5 9 32 26 23 26 18 22 26 23 31
S Korea 21 24 29 22 19 27 6 24 31 31 35 29 27 31 24
Spain 10 15 3 6 16 11 2 15 10 5 4 7 14 8 5
Sri Lanka 26 30 35 34 11 16 18 35 28 32 26 34 25 20 23
Switzerland 14 9 9 3 14 19 8 1 8 7 15 11 6 9 9
Taiwan 25 27 28 26 26 26 19 28 33 28 30 20 21 28 30
UK (England) 18 14 11 20 23 20 28 19 15 22 29 15 17 11 19
UK (Wales) 20 11 14 17 29 25 27 23 11 21 31 16 11 16 20
Vietnam 35 32 34 35 28 31 34 29 34 35 32 35 35 29 35
10 years old. This table shows how each country ranks on each aspect of life. A higher rank indicates higher mean satisfaction.
83
Table 8.3: Within-country mean satisfaction ranking for 15 aspects of life

Albania 2 4 8 9 5 1 12 15 7 6 10 3 11 13 14
Algeria 2 6 7 11 4 1 15 14 12 3 8 5 13 9 10
Bangladesh 2 7 5 9 3 1 15 4 6 11 12 8 13 10 14
Belgium
(Flanders) 6 2 1 9 15 11 14 8 5 3 12 4 7 13 10
Brazil 3 4 5 8 6 1 13 15 7 2 9 10 12 11 14
Chile 2 3 1 11 14 6 15 13 10 4 7 5 8 12 9
Croatia 3 4 1 9 15 8 14 13 7 2 10 5 6 11 12
Estonia 3 2 1 9 14 11 15 6 7 5 10 4 8 12 13
Finland 4 1 2 8 14 11 15 10 7 3 13 5 6 9 12
France 7 3 5 4 13 6 15 2 10 1 12 9 11 14 8
Germany 7 5 1 8 12 13 14 15 11 2 10 4 3 9 6
Greece 3 4 5 13 14 8 15 11 9 1 7 2 6 12 10
Hong Kong SAR 5 7 3 4 10 6 11 8 15 2 13 1 9 14 12
Hungary 3 2 1 10 15 13 14 8 11 5 12 4 9 6 7
India 1 6 4 10 3 2 12 13 7 9 8 5 14 15 11
Indonesia 8 12 4 9 1 6 14 5 13 2 11 7 10 15 3
Israel 1 3 2 11 15 14 13 8 9 4 7 5 6 10 12
Italy 3 5 1 9 13 4 15 11 7 2 10 6 8 12 14
Malaysia 2 1 3 12 10 5 15 4 8 6 7 9 14 13 11
Malta 2 5 1 8 13 9 14 10 7 4 6 3 12 11 15
Namibia 8 7 5 12 4 1 15 14 9 2 3 6 11 10 13
Nepal 2 6 9 10 3 1 11 4 7 8 14 5 13 12 15
Norway 3 5 2 7 15 10 14 11 13 4 12 1 6 8 9
Poland 5 2 1 13 15 11 14 10 6 3 8 4 7 12 9
Romania 3 6 2 12 10 5 15 14 8 1 9 4 7 11 13
Russia 2 4 1 7 14 12 15 8 5 3 9 6 10 11 13
S Africa 6 7 4 10 3 1 15 12 9 5 8 2 13 11 14
S Korea 1 2 3 6 9 7 8 10 13 4 15 5 11 14 12
Spain 3 5 1 8 15 6 13 14 9 2 7 4 11 12 10
Sri Lanka 2 6 12 14 3 1 13 15 7 4 10 9 8 5 11
Switzerland 4 3 1 8 14 11 15 5 9 2 13 6 7 12 10
Taiwan 3 2 4 7 12 6 15 9 11 5 14 1 8 10 13
UK (England) 2 3 1 10 13 8 15 11 6 5 14 4 7 9 12
UK (Wales) 3 2 1 8 13 10 15 11 6 5 14 4 7 9 12
Vietnam 9 2 6 15 7 1 13 5 10 3 11 8 12 4 14
10 years old. This table shows how each aspect of life ranks within countries. A higher rank indicates higher mean satisfaction.
84
Table 8.4: Relative satisfaction scores for 15 aspects of life

Albania 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.01 1.05 1.01 1.07 0.94 1.01 0.98 1.02 0.99 1.01 0.98 0.98
Algeria 1.02 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.07 1.06 0.96 0.93 0.97 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.95 1.02 1.02
Bangladesh 1.01 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.07 1.06 0.99 1.05 1.02 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.97 1.01 0.95
Belgium (Flanders) 0.98 1.02 1.03 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.02
Brazil 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.02 0.95 1.01 1.03 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97
Chile 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.03
Croatia 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.99 1.02 0.97 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.03 0.99 0.99
Estonia 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.99
Finland 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.02 0.97 0.97 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.00
France 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.04 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.06 1.00 1.02 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.04
Germany 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.02 0.97 0.92 0.99 0.90 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.03 1.05
Greece 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.01
Hong Kong SAR 0.99 0.98 1.02 1.05 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.01 0.93 1.03 0.96 1.05 0.99 0.96 0.99
Hungary 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.01 0.86 0.92 0.93 1.02 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.03 1.01 1.06 1.06
India 1.03 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.08 1.04 1.03 0.96 1.02 0.96 1.02 0.99 0.94 0.95 1.00
Indonesia 0.96 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.02 1.04 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.97 1.06
Israel 1.04 1.03 1.02 0.98 0.91 0.88 0.97 1.04 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.02 1.05 1.01 0.99
Italy 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.01 0.98 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.98 0.98
Malaysia 1.04 1.04 1.03 0.94 1.04 1.02 0.90 1.06 1.02 1.00 1.06 0.99 0.91 0.95 0.98
Malta 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 1.03 1.01 0.96 1.01 0.97
Namibia 0.96 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.07 1.06 0.94 0.95 0.99 1.02 1.07 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.98
Nepal 1.02 0.99 0.97 1.02 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.02 0.98 0.93 1.00 0.94 0.96 0.93
Norway 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.96 0.98 1.03 1.01 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.02
Poland 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.96 0.91 0.96 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.03 1.01 1.02 0.99 1.04
Romania 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.02 1.01 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00
Russia 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 0.94 0.97 0.98 1.03 1.03 1.00 1.01 0.99 1.00 1.02 0.97
S Africa 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.07 1.05 0.94 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.03 1.01 0.98 1.00 0.96
S Korea 1.03 1.03 0.99 1.03 1.03 1.00 1.08 1.02 0.97 0.99 0.89 0.99 0.99 0.97 1.00
Spain 0.99 0.98 1.01 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.04 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.02
Sri Lanka 1.02 0.99 0.93 0.92 1.08 1.05 1.04 0.91 1.02 0.99 1.01 0.98 1.01 1.04 1.03
Switzerland 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 0.98 0.97 1.01 1.04 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.02 1.00 1.01
Taiwan 1.01 1.02 1.00 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.02 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.03 1.02 0.99 0.98
UK (England) 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.94 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.00
UK (Wales) 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.01 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.03 1.00 0.94 1.01 1.03 1.02 1.00
Vietnam 0.96 1.03 0.99 0.91 1.06 1.05 1.01 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.06 0.94
10 years old
85
Chapter 9
Conclusion
Overview
The Children’s Worlds Survey presents a unique view of childhood, from children around the world.
This report is but a first step in analysing data gathered from over 128,000 children in 35 countries
and regions across five continents. The third wave conclusion begins with a description of the
diversity in children’s circumstances and daily lives. It is followed by a consideration of variants in
children’s well-being, both between and within countries. We then examine proposed further analysis
and make recommendations for future research. Finally, we provide the key points and policy
implications of our findings.
The diversity of children’s circumstances and daily lives

One key contributions of the Children’s Worlds Study is the advance in cross-cultural comparisons of
children’s perceptions, experiences and evaluations of their lives across diverse geographical, social
and economic contexts. The current wave enables us to compare data from children in 35 countries,
providing a unique opportunity to enhance our own understanding of children’s lives, and promote
global understanding of childhood.
Similar to the previous waves, we found considerable diversity in children’s living experiences, in
factors such as living arrangements and material circumstances. For example, children living with
both parents ranged from as low as 60% in South Africa, to 95% in Albania. In some countries, up to
8% of children did not live with either parent, while in other countries (e.g. Albania) all children lived
with at least one parent. We also found children are increasingly living in two homes, likely a result of
parental separation. Children’s material circumstances also varied substantially. Internet access
remains a particular point of disparity, with only 33% of children in Nepal and 40% in Bangladesh
indicating having access, in contrast to high-income European countries where more than 90% of
children have access. This raises concern that information inequality may constitute a new form of
disadvantage for children in low-income countries, especially relevant in the current context of
restricted access to school and learning opportunities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another
revealing finding emerged in children's response to whether they felt they had enough food to eat
each day. In nine countries (all located in Africa and Asia), more than 10% selected the options of
‘never’ or ‘sometimes’. While we cannot use this data to make inferences regarding child hunger,
stunting or inadequate nutrition, the results do suggest that from children’s perspective food security
is a concern.
While our analysis suggests variations across countries, we caution against using children’s level of
access to material items to compare material circumstances without due consideration to social,
cultural and economic factors. This set of items included in the study, may be useful in exploring
86
within-country differences in children’s experience of life depending on their level of access to

material items.
Between-country variations in children’s well-being

Historically, the Children’s World Study is premised on a hierarchical conceptualisation of subjective
well-being, which includes measuring children’s cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives. The
cognitive component includes both context-free and domain-based aspects of children’s lives; the
affective component includes positive and negative affect. The current wave of the survey included,
for the first time, items assessing negative affect. In fact, the third wave of the survey is the first
multinational research to include negative affect items to study children’s subjective well-being, and
we also included an adapted scale measuring eudaimonic well-being. However, confirmatory factor
analysis conducted with the various scales used in the study (presented in Chapter 3), largely failed to
establish measurement invariance. This suggests that the scores cannot be meaningfully compared
across countries, and it is likely that children in different contexts had a different understanding of
the items. We were, however, able to establish a level of measurement invariance for the Children’s
Worlds Subjective Well-Being Scale (CW-SWBS measuring the cognitive aspect of life satisfaction),
which allows cross-country comparisons by correlations and regressions. We learn that we must
exercise caution in making cross-country comparisons with these subjective well-being scales,
especially in comparing mean scores.
Lack of measurement invariance is not unusual in cross-cultural studies; findings were similar in the
first two waves of the survey, perhaps due to cultural patterns introducing systematic response bias.
To mitigate this, the Children’s Worlds Study integrates two strategies: one is a multiple-indicator
approach in comparing children’s well-being scores; the second is providing contextual information
to support evidence of findings in individual countries and enhance interpretation. In the current
report our focus is on the multiple-indicator approach when reporting low-satisfaction percentages,
mean scores and relative scores. Relative scores are a recent innovation, and reflect scoring patterns
within each country and across each aspect of life. The key feature of relative scores is in presenting a
balance of positive and negative aspects in each country. To a large extent, this addresses concerns
about possible cultural response bias, and enables extraction of strengths and weaknesses in
subjective well-being in each country, which is potentially informative and useful to policy-makers.
Using this multiple-indicator approach provides a broad-based view, and insight into variations
across countries.
Applying the approach to measures of overall well-being raises an important point: which headline
measure should be emphasized? Should it be noted that different methods lead to different
conclusions, ultimately linked to what one wishes to achieve? This in itself defines strategies for
improving well-being; for example, are we interested in improving mean well-being scores, reducing
low well-being, or reducing inequality? These decisions also have implications for informing social
policy. That said, our findings do suggest a consistent pattern in measures of subjective well-being:
countries presenting with higher mean scores generally had lower levels of low satisfaction, and vice
versa. We also note a consistent trend in scores and rankings for countries and geographical regions.
Albania, Romania, Malta, Spain, and Croatia consistently ranked in the upper half across overall
subjective well-being measures. Asian countries/regions Vietnam, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, and
South Korea ranked consistently in the lower half. Remarkably, Albania ranked 1st across 10- and 12-
year-olds in all measures. Although likely an outcome of cultural response style, further
contextualisation is necessary for a more meaningful interpretation. While subjective well-being
measures may be valuable indicators, their inherent abstraction limits practical applicability and
informing policy. A bottom-up approach may be more tangible, and therefore palatable to policy-
makers; it seems more realistic to improve children’s satisfaction with specific aspects of their life
(e.g., school or neighbourhood), rather than attempt to increase their overall well-being. Focused
87
social intervention for children with lower scores, is certainly more effective than targeting all
children, as trying to improve well-being for children with high scores would be a particularly
formidable undertaking.
Exploring children’s well-being in different aspects across countries, presents interesting results. One
notable finding showed that some countries ranked consistently across the various domains, while
others presented with substantial variation. Again, this was dependent on the measures used. Albania
ranked 1st across 13 of 15 domains of well-being included in the study. Croatia, Greece, and Romania
ranked consistently high across all domains, while Hong Kong SAR, Nepal, Taiwan, and Vietnam
ranked consistently low. Other countries showed much greater variability; Namibia and South Africa
ranked in the top 10 for satisfaction with 'life as a student’ and 'things learned at school’, but much
lower in the other 13 domains. Hungary too demonstrates variability, ranking in the top 10 across
seven items, but substantially lower for satisfaction with' life as a student’, 'things learned at school’
and ‘classmates’.
A different picture emerged from relative scores. Interestingly, the three aspects related to school
climate presented with the most pronounced relative scores, both positive and negative. Satisfaction
with appearance, freedom, being listened to and future also showed distinct scores. The considerable
number of 35 countries lends credibility to relative scores, and is especially useful for policy-makers
targeting specific aspects to improve children's lives.
Within-country variations in children’s well-being

The unique contribution of the Children’s Worlds Study is showcasing between-country variations,
and yet we have consistently found more variations within than between countries. There appears to
be a trend in ranking within countries regarding specific aspects of children’s lives. Satisfaction with
family, home, material possessions, health, and safety ranked high in most countries, whereas
satisfaction with classmates, neighbourhood, appearance, freedom, and being listened to ranked low.
Satisfaction with classmates in particular, ranked low – in the bottom three in most countries. Recent
literature on children’s subjective well-being, has identified a range of factors contributing to within-
country variations, including among others: macro-level factors (e.g., socio-economic status, income
equality, poverty and deprivation, social class and culture); micro-level factors (e.g., school,
neighbourhood and relationships with family and friends); and individual level factors (e.g., age,
gender, and personality characteristics). This report focuses on age and gender, which have proven to
be a key source of within-country variation. Over the past two decades increasing evidence supports
the notion of subjective well-being decreasing with age. The Children’s Worlds Survey was able to
test this hypothesis across the 10- and 12-year-old age groups, thanks to identical wording of the
questions and response options. In the current wave of the survey we found evidence of subjective
well-being decreasing with age in most countries, across measures of well-being (with the exception
of negative affect which increases) and specific aspects of life. In some instances, the decrease was
marginal, in others quite significant. The CW-SWBS measure of overall subjective well-being showed
the 10-year-olds presented with significantly higher scores than the 12-year-olds, in 21 of 35 countries.
Negative affect measures found significant increase (decrease in subjective well-being) between 10-
and 12-year-olds in 22 countries. The specific aspect of ‘satisfaction with people you live with’ being
an example, we found the 10-year-olds scored significantly higher than the 12-year-olds in 12
countries. In this example, it was the 12-year-olds who scored significantly higher in one country
(Indonesia). Tables 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 7.1 easily identify examples of the subjective well-being
tendency to decrease with age. Individual country research teams should consider further exploration
of this trend within their country contexts.
88
Results diverge across gender, with girls scoring significantly higher than boys in some countries, and
boys in others. This finding is in line with previous waves of the Children’s Worlds survey and the
broader literature base on children’s subjective well-being. In the current wave, we explored the
gender differences within the three age groups for the overall well-being scales. An interesting
finding shows that the number of countries with significant gender differences increased with age.
For example, the CW-SWBS showed three countries with significant gender differences for the 8-year-
olds, nine countries for the 10-year-olds, and 16 for the 12-year-olds. The dynamics behind this
association and whether the level of significance also increases with age, would be an interesting area
of further research. Considering gender differences across specific aspects of life, there were
particularly strong differences for ‘satisfaction with life as a student’; significant gender differences
showed in 22 countries, girls presenting with significantly higher scores. These and other trends in
gender differences remain a fruitful area of research, thus individual countries are advised to follow a
contextual approach to better understand the gender-related patterns.
Recommendations for further analysis

This report delivered a largely descriptive account, in itself an expedient first step in understanding
children’s subjective well-being, and how children experience and evaluate various aspects of their
lives. Through the various chapters, we have taken account of variations in children’s subjective well-
being, both between and within countries; relative scores are integral in making sense of them.
Country teams are advised to heed these scores, as they highlight specific aspects of life where
children are doing relatively well or poorly. Researchers and social service practitioners may target
aspects of life with relatively low scores as a strategy to improve children’s well-being. Future
analysis should advance more sophisticated approaches, and strive to explain variations. Data from
the current wave of the survey offers opportunities for such exploration of individuals, countries, and
between countries. Multi-level modelling would provide greater insight into how subjective well-
being varies within different domains of well-being and aspects of life, and could potentially elucidate
the mechanisms driving these variations.
One of the main concerns raised in research on children’s subjective well-being is that of
measurement. Traditionally, scales developed for adults were adapted for children. The Children’s
Worlds Study developed unique measurement scales, which reflect engagement with children and
their input. In the current wave of the survey children from varying contexts were consulted, as
opposed to limited samples of children from high-income contexts. We were also able to draw on
psychometric testing conducted during previous waves of the survey, to improve measurement and
enhance measurement process credibility. Thus we constructed specific scales to measure the various
components of children’s subjective well-being. We introduced the Children’s Worlds Subjective Well-
Being Scale (context-free), the Children’s Worlds Domain Based Subjective Well-Being Scale, and the
Children’s Worlds Psychological Well-Being Scale. And still, given the lack of measurement
invariance across the different contexts, further research on measurement design and construction is
required; we recommend using participatory techniques with children across different contexts,
cultures, and languages. The importance of this cannot be overstated, as it somewhat mitigates the
main measurement issues outlined above, and increases the ecological validity of the study.
Given that lack of measurement invariance limits cross-country comparisons (especially using mean
scores), we caution against using mean scores as the sole indicator for comparisons. We recommend a
multi-indicator approach that includes means, low satisfaction percentage, relative scores, and a
measure of inequality. In the current report we have not included analysis of the latter; we
recommend that future analysis include measures of inequality to add depth to the interpretation.
The Children’s Worlds Study has traditionally also emphasised contextualisation of findings, as
additional means to enhance the depth of interpretation. We recommend that country teams drive
89
this approach; it would go a long way toward making sense of curious results that have emerged
from the study. A few examples would be seeking contextual variables to explain the high scores
across all measures of subjective well-being in Albania; a contextual approach used to interpret low
scores for positive affect in Germany; and contextual analysis affording clarification on the gendered
nature of the findings in some countries.
As previously mentioned, our data capture all components of a hierarchical conceptualisation of

subjective well-being, including positive and negative affect. This provides an opportunity to test
various structural models of children’s subjective well-being with different samples and cohorts.
In this report we limited our focus to the key domains of well-being. We recommend further analysis
of important themes found to be related to children’s subjective well-being, including safety, social
relationships, time-use, body image, bullying and peer victimisation, and children’s rights.
Directions for future research

Through three iterations, the Children’s Worlds Study is the largest multinational research on
children’s subjective well-being. The third wave collected comparative data from 35, largely
representative country samples. Given the project management burden, issues around funding, and
navigating complex methodological challenges, this is an impressive feat. That said, future waves of
the survey should strive to increase sample representativeness, to enhance comparability and
ecological validity of the findings. This would entail further standardising sample protocols of
participating countries, and should be prioritised above increasing the number of participating
countries.
The Children’s Worlds Study has provided data on younger children, unavailable in the broader
literature-base. Aspiring to continue our philosophy of including younger children, gives rise to the
important question of survey participation age limit, given the cognitive burden of endorsing
response options on a questionnaire. We may have to design more innovative ways of engaging with
and collecting data from large samples of younger children. Using emoticons with the 8-year-old
cohort has already provided some assurance of possibility, and opened up an area for research future.
Some countries collected part or all questionnaires on-line, other administered paper questionnaires.
More research is requires, as well as children’s advice, in order to guarantee the equivalence of paper
and on-line response in different countries, and also to guarantee that format does not introduce
cultural bias to the answers.
Across the three waves of the survey, we consistently found overall well-being scales to be non-
invariant across countries, and subsequently cautioned against use of mean scores to compare and
rank countries. We further found variations in children’s subjective well-being better explained at
within-country, rather than between-country level. Given the cultural and linguistic complexities of a
multinational study of this magnitude, this outcome is understandable. To address this issue we have
used a multi-indicator and contextual approach. In future waves of the survey we may consider
moving away from the tradition of ranking countries, especially as it relates to the more abstract
measures of overall subjective well-being. However, ranking countries on more concretely worded
items related to various aspects of children’s lives, may still be more convenient for policy-makers.
While the survey considers a vast list of items and themes that directly impact children’s lives, there is
a distinct possibility we may be overlooking themes that are important to children. Further qualitative
research with children is therefore essential, to ensure we capture all important aspects of children’s
lives. Information and communication technology progress, and current context of the global COVID-
19 pandemic, are rapidly altering children’s life experiences.
90
Since the survey was conducted with children in mainstream schools, it is likely that certain sub-
groups have been excluded from the sampling process, such as children with special needs and those
who do not attend school for various reasons. A significant area for future research would be to gain
access to those children and include them in subsequent waves of the study.
Lack of longitudinal data still remains a limitation, and reduces the capacity of researchers to make
confident claims about causal relations between variables. For future waves of the survey, a
longitudinal methodological approach should be strongly considered.
Key messages and implications for policy

The essence of the Children’s Worlds Study is to generate data for ultimate use in effecting positive
change in children’s lives, and to improve their overall quality of life. Below we consider the key
messages of the study, and its implications for social policy.
The first broad message is that child and adult subjective well-being are relatively independent of
each other, the factors that influence adult subjective well-being and children’s subjective well-being,
are distinct. The implication is that any social policy initiatives aimed at improving children’s
subjective well-being, should include data that reflects direct engagement with children, placing them
centrally in the research process, and ensuring their voices are brought to the fore.
The second broad message is the important contribution of cross-country studies on children’s
subjective well-being. They enable policy makers to ascertain how children in their individual
countries fare on certain aspects of life, in comparison to other countries. This may prove valuable to
policy makers in targeting certain areas of children’s lives for improvement. In a similar way, it would
allow identifying universal trends that warrant further research or policy intervention. For example,
‘satisfaction with classmates’ ranked very poorly in relation to other aspects of children’s lives across
the majority of countries; this information would be beneficial for researchers, international agencies
and policy makers to advance further research in the area, develop and implement interventions, and
enact policy responses. It is only through cross-country studies which facilitate comparative analysis,
that this information becomes available.
The third broad message is premised on evidence that most variation in children’s subjective well-
being, is explained at the within-country level. Using a multiple indicator approach, affords policy
makers confidence in identifying priority areas that require intervention. For example, improving the
well-being of children presenting with high scores is a difficult task; policy makers may prefer to
identify and target subgroups or clusters of children presenting with low well-being. Relative scores
are a particularly useful measure to provide policy makers with information on aspects of life where
children are doing relatively well or poorly. This would allow for targeted social interventions to be
actioned towards certain aspects of life, with specific subgroups of children.
This third wave of the Children’s Worlds study, as with previous waves, has contributed to and
exemplifies the important role of multinational cross-country comparative research on children’s
subjective well-being, by engaging with children directly about their experiences of various life
aspects. By elucidating these key components of children’s lives across country contexts, including
positive and negative influence, we are able to focus on and address priority areas for prospective
research between and within countries.
The Children’s World Study is premised on the collective belief in the great value of engaging with
children directly on matters affecting their lives, and children’s perspectives and evaluations of
various aspects of their lives as meaningful sources of knowledge. This expresses our value position,
of ascribing to children as a valid population cohort, and to childhood as an authentic structural
91
feature of society. It is from this position that our work is located theoretically and informed
methodologically. We take pride in the Children’s Worlds tradition of engaging directly with
children, and in our commitment to ensuring that evidence-based knowledge is generated into
policies and actions, that contribute to improving children's well-being and quality of life.
92
Appendix: Technical details of the study

Here we provide a brief non-technical overview of the design of wave 3 of the Children’s Worlds
study. Further information will be made available in a technical paper on the project website 3.
Questionnaire development
Preparation for the third wave of the study began in November 2015 with a review of learning from
the second wave. This included gathering feedback from all participating national research teams on
strengths and weaknesses of the survey design. This feedback process was combined with statistical
analysis of the data to identify questions that had not worked well (for example, high levels of
missing data or very skewed distributions). Research teams also proposed ideas for new content.
A second phase of preparation was to agree key areas of focus for the third wave. The second wave of
the survey had provided a descriptive overview of variations in children’s subjective well-being. It
was agreed that the third wave would attempt to go further in identifying factors that explained these
variations both within and between countries. This led to a stronger focus on children’s material
circumstances and to the inclusion of questions in each country to identify sub-groups of children (for
example on the basis of ethnicity, language or religion) who may be at risk of lower-than-average
well-being. It was also agreed that there would be an increased focus on children’s experiences of
safety and violence, and additional questions on these topics were proposed for the questionnaire.
Building on the above work , the first draft of a new questionnaire was developed (May 2016). This
was circulated to all research teams who at that point had already indicated their intention to join the
third wave. Feedback was received on the formulation and feasibility of questions and some
additional suggestions for new content.
This led to a second draft of the questionnaire that was circulated to all participating teams for
piloting and discussion with children (February 2017). Guidance on the use of focus groups and
cognitive testing was also provided for the piloting process. This draft version of the questionnaire
was piloted involving 517 children in 14 countries.
Based on the outcomes of the piloting process, a revised and shortened version of the questionnaire
was developed and circulated to all participating research teams for a final round of feedback. This
process then led to the final versions of the questionnaires for three age groups of children covered by
the survey. The content of these questionnaires is presented and discussed in Chapter 3.
Ethics
A requirement for participation in the survey is that the national research team receives ethical
approval from an appropriate authorising body within their country. This might include institutional
3 www.isciweb.org
93
review boards in universities and government departments. Guidance on key ethical principles was
provided to research teams to promote consistency of approach. For example, the importance of
maximising children’s rights to participate in the research was emphasised. All countries included in
this report received appropriate ethical clearance.
One of the key ethical issues that should be noted were requirements to seek parental consent. In
some countries it is necessary (for legal reason) to seek active parental consent whereby a parent
signed a consent form prior to their child’s participation in the survey. Other countries used passive
consent – information was provided to parents who had the opportunity to notify the school that they
did not wish their child to participate. In some countries no parental consent was needed as schools
were able to provide consent.
The issue of parental consent is a key challenge for representative surveys of children. It presents a
juxtaposition of parent’s rights to make decisions about their children (sometimes enshrined in
national law) and children’s rights to make their own choices and freely express their views (as in the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). This is an issue that requires further
discussion in the international research community – particularly for surveys such as Children’s
Worlds that focus on children’s views and carry minimal risks of harm. In general, the feedback from
schools was that children enjoyed participating in the survey and saw it as an important opportunity
to express their views. No adverse effects of participation were reported to the national research
teams.
Sampling strategies
For the second wave of the survey a specialist central review board had been established to review
proposals for sampling strategies and approve final versions. This had worked well and so was
continued for the third wave. A set of guidelines were drawn up, incorporating learning from the
second wave. Key requirements for full inclusion in the study were to use some form of random
sampling (usually random stratified cluster sampling) with a sampling frame covering at least 95% of
the child population in the age groups surveyed in mainstream schools. Up to 5% exclusions were
allowed in each country due to issues such as the difficulties and costs of surveying very small
schools in geographically remote areas. A target sample size of at least 1,000 children in at least 20
schools in each age group was set.
Initially each national research team proposed a sampling strategy. This was reviewed by the
sampling review board who provided feedback, including suggestions for improvement. After one or
more revisions, each final strategy was approved by the review board.
Administration
The responsibility for conducting the survey lay with each national research team. In most countries,
surveys were administered on paper. In these cases members of the research team visited each school
to support the survey administration and were available to answer any questions from staff or
children. In some countries (Belgium (Flanders), Finland, Spain, Germany, Greece, Malta, Norway,
Poland, Russia, Taiwan and UK (England and Wales)) the survey was administered by electronic
questionnaire instead of or in addition to paper. In some of these instances members of the research
team still visited the schools when the survey was administered while in others the research team sent
guidance to schools and teachers were responsible for organising the administration. The decision as
to whether to use paper or digital questionnaires was primarily informed by practicalities within each
country. It is still an open question as to whether different modes of questionnaire may lead to
different response patterns among children.
94
Some research teams felt that the youngest age group of children – around the age of 8 years – may be
unfamiliar with completing questionnaires of this kind. A sample training sheet was produced that
could be adapted to local context and used immediately before the survey to enable children to
familiarise themselves with the task.
Data processing
Data inputting of paper questionnaires was conducted by each national research team who were
responsible for carrying out checks to ensure the quality of data input. At this stage all questionnaires
were input as there was a subsequent data cleaning process managed centrally. A standard template
in SPSS was used for data inputting to ensure consistency of coding across countries. Evidently this
stage was not required for digital questionnaires although some recoding was required to match the
standard template.
The data files were then sent to a central team of researchers who undertook a standard set of checks
on the data. This include identifying any inconsistencies in coding and any variables with particularly
high levels of missing data. These issues were discussed with each national research team and any
remedial actions and corrections were applied.
In addition, a number of criteria were used to identify any cases that would not be included in the
international data set. These were:
1. The child was more than two years outside the target age range for the particular age group
being surveyed
2. More than 50% of the child’s responses were missing data
3. There was evidence of systematic responding (exactly the same answers for a set of 14 time
use questions). This criterion for identifying systematic responding had also been used in the
previous wave of the survey. Based on meeting any of these three criteria cases were omitted
from the international data set. On average this resulted in around 3% of cases being
excluded.
Following the completion of the data cleaning process, weightings were calculated for most of the
national data sets. These weightings were designed to rebalance the survey based on:
1. Planned unequal probability of selection at the sampling design stage
2. Non-participation of children or schools in the way originally envisaged in the sampling

design
3. Balancing the proportion of cases across sampling strata to match the profile of the overall
child population.
95
References
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press.
Adams, S., & Savahl, S. (2016). Children’s discourses of natural spaces: Considerations for children’s
subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9374-2
Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. (2013). The multifaceted concept of child well-being.
In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of children well-being (pp 1-
33). Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
Ben-Arieh, A., & Shimoni, E. (2014). Subjective well-being and perceptions of safety among Jewish
and Arab children in Israel. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 100–
107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.05.017
Casas, F. (2017). Analysing the comparability of 3 multi-item subjective well-being psychometric
scales among 15 countries using samples of 10 and 12-year-olds. Child Indicators Research, 10,
297–330. DOI 10.1007/s12187-015-9360-0.
Casas, F., & González, M. (2017). School: One world or two worlds? Children's perspectives.
Children and Youth Services Review, 80, 157–170.
Cohen, J., Mccabe, E. M., & Michelli, N. M. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and
teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.
Coulton, C. J., & Korbin, J. E. (2007). Indicators of child well-being through a neighborhood
lens. Social Indicators Research, 84(3), 349-361.
Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., De Looze, M., Roberts, C., ... & Barnekow, V. (2009).
Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health Behaviour in
School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the, 2010, 271.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–26
Dew, T., & Huebner, E. S. (1994). Adolescents’ perceived quality of life: An exploratory
investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 32(2), 185–199.
Diener, E. (2009). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. In Assessing well-
being (pp. 25-65). Springer, Dordrecht.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 851-864.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R.E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional
and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-425.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056
Diener, E., & Suh, E.M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. The MIT Press.
96
Fattore, T., Fegter, S., & Hunner-Kreisel, C. (2019). Children’s understandings of well-being in
global and local contexts: Theoretical and methodological considerations for a multinational
qualitative study. Child Indicators Research, 12(2), 385-407.
Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current
affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(4), 967.
Gilman, R., & Huebner, S. (2003). A review of life satisfaction research with children and
adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 192
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., Wang, S., & Norton, M. (2020). Social environments for world
happiness. World Happiness Report 2020.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of
enabling school structures. Educational administration quarterly, 37(3), 296-321.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial Development of the Student’s Life Satisfaction Scale. School Psychology
International, 12(3), 231–240. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143034391123010
Huebner, E. S., Hills, K., Jiang, X., Long, R., Kelly, R., & Lyons, M. (2014). Schooling and children’s
subjective well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of
child well-being (pp. 797–819). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9063-
8_26.
Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., Smith, L. C., & McKnight, C. G. (2004). Life satisfaction in children and
youth: Empirical foundations and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the
Schools, 41(1), 81-93.
Joronen, K., & Astedt-Kurki, P. (2005). Familial contribution to adolescent subjective well-being.
International Journal of Nursing Practice, 11(3), 125–133.
Jutras, S., & Lepage, G. (2006). Parental perceptions of contributions of school and neighborhood to
children's psychological wellness. Journal of community Psychology, 34(3), 305-325.
Lee, B. J., & Yoo, M. S. (2015). Family, school, and community correlates of children’s subjective
well-being: An international comparative study. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 151–
175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9285-z
Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2017). The impact of school
climate and school identification on academic achievement: Multilevel modeling with
student and teacher data. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2069.
McDonell, J. R. (2007). Neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and children’s safety. Social
Indicators Research, 83(1), 177-199.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorial
invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–542.
Millsap, R. E., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2012). Investigating measurement invariance using
confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation
modeling (pp. 380–392). New York: Guilford.
Nickerson, A. B., & Nagle, R. J. (2004). The influence of parent and peer attachments on life
satisfaction in middle childhood and early adolescence. In Quality-of-life research on children
and adolescents (pp. 35-60). Springer, Dordrecht.
Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Life satisfaction in early adolescence:
Personal, neighborhood, school, family, and peer influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
40(7), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9599-1
97
Proctor, C. L., Linley, P. A., & Maltby, J. (2009). Youth life satisfaction: A review of the literature.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(5), 583–630
Rees, G. (2017). Local area. In Children’s Views on Their Lives and Well-being (pp. 121-128). Springer,
Cham.
Rees, G., Tonon, G., Mikkelsen, C., & de la Vega, L. R. (2017). Urban-rural variations in children's
lives and subjective well-being: A comparative analysis of four countries. Children and Youth
Services Review, 80, 41-51.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069.
Schleicher, A. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. OECD Publishing.
Steinmayr, R., Heyder, A., Naumburg, C., Michels, J., & Wirthwein, L. (2018). School-related and
individual predictors of subjective well-being and academic achievement. Frontiers in
psychology, 9, 2631.
Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 294–306.
98

Childrens Worlds Comparative Report 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Childrens Worlds Comparative Report 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

CHILDREN'S VIEWS ON THEIR LIVES AND WELL-BEING IN 35 COUNTRIES:

Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 35 countries:

About this report

It can be cited as follows:

International project team of Children’s Worlds 2016-19

Project Principal Investigators (Core Group)

National Principal Investigators and Researchers

Notes to this report:

The final data set

The questionnaires cover:

The questionnaires consisted mainly of four types of questions:

International comparison of children’s subjective well-being

Statistical analysis in this report

Box 2.1: Questions on children’s home circumstances

Children’s home circumstances

2 parents 1 parent No parents

Figure 2.2: Children living with a sibling or other child

Figure 2.3: Children living with a grandparent in the household

Box 2.2: Questions about material circumstances

Which of the following things do you have?

Table 2.1: Children having each item by country

Good Good School Equip Equip Pocket Internet Mobile

Figure 2.5: Children having a mobile phone by age group

Countries ordered by proportion of 10-year-old children having a mobile phone.

Figure 2.6: Children lacking items by country

Figure 2.7: Children having enough food to eat each day

Never Sometimes Often Always

Never Sometimes Often Always

Hedonic or subjective well-being (SWB) is often defined as an overarching concept reffering

Box 3: Questions on overall well-being

Cognitive subjective well-being

1 Detailed results of each CFA are available on request

Figure 3.1: Subjective well-being mean and low satisfaction percentage

8 years old 10 years old 12 years old

Table 3.2: Subjective well-being by gender and age

Figure 3.2: Children ‘always’ feeling happy by gender

India (Kolkata)* 78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Table 3.3: Positive affect items mean and country ranking

Figure 3.3: Positive affect mean and percentage low affect

10 years old 12 years old

Figure 3.4: Children ‘always’ feeling sad by gender

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Table 3.4: Negative affect item means and country rankings

10 years old 12 years old

Table 3.6: Psychological well-being mean score by item

Figure 3.6: Psychological well-being mean and percentage low well-being

Albania 9.59 0.73%

Box 4: Questions about the people you live with

8 years old 10 years old 12 years old

Perceptions of family life

Algeria 77% 18 72% 15 75% 6 80% 14 65% 6 65% 5

Box 5: Questions about your friends

8 years old 10 years old 12 years old

Table 5.1: Satisfaction with friends by gender and age

Perceptions of peer relationships

Figure 5.3: Children totally agreeing friends are nice by age

Satisfaction with life as a student

8 years old 10 years old 12 years old

Table 6.1: Satisfaction with life as a student by gender and age

Girls Boys 10yo 12yo

8 years old % low satisfaction